subdivision rule (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

subdivision rule in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Rose v. Rosegreen
indctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025“Generally, dismissals should be permitted ‘unless the defendant will suffer some legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.’” Id. (quoting Rose, 526 N.E. 2d 234 ). [17] Although case law does not precisely define ‘legal prejudice,’ legal prejudice has been found when actual legal rights are threatened or when monetary or other burdens appear to be extreme or unreasonable. [T]he factors most commonly considered on a motion for a voluntary dismissal are: (1) the extent to which the suit has progressed, including the defendant’s effort and expense in preparing for trial, (

2025Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. for visitation sufficed to make them a part of the case such that Mother could not voluntarily dismiss the action without a court order[.]”), trans. denied. [16] Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(A)(2), the Trial Court may enter an order dismissing the Adoption Petition at Stepfather’s request “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” “The purpose of this r

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Burks v. Bolerjack green
ind · 1981
2 sentences

1983Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of the rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." (Our emphasis) In response, the governmental entities and the officers sought to have the May 5 dismissal set aside and gain the inevitable judgment which in turn could be used as a bar to the continued action against the officers under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-5(a) and Bolerjack, supra .

1983Exeept as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of the rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." (Our emphasis) In response, the governmental entities and the officers sought to have the May 5 dismissal set aside and gain the inevitable judgment which in turn could be used as a bar to the continued action against the officers under Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-5(a) and Bolerjack, supra. They were successful, and the trial court vacated the dismissal against the city and state.

21983–1983
Teresa Tapia Sevilla and Alfonso Sevilla v. Maria Lopez green
indctapp · 2020
1 sentence

2025Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. for visitation sufficed to make them a part of the case such that Mother could not voluntarily dismiss the action without a court order[.]”), trans. denied. [16] Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(A)(2), the Trial Court may enter an order dismissing the Adoption Petition at Stepfather’s request “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” “The purpose of this r

12025–2025
Highland Realty, Inc. v. Indianapolis Airport Authority green
ind · 1990
2 sentences

1997Id. at 1273 .

1997T.R. 41(A)(2) states in pertinent part: “Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiffs instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper....” In Highland Realty v. Airport Authority, 563 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind.1990), our supreme court concluded that the “terms and conditions” for dismissal under T.R. 41(A)(2) may include the payment of attorney’s fees to assure that a dismissal does not prejudice or unfairly inconvenience the defendant.

11997–1997
Daly v. Nau green
indctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1980However, TR. 52(D) now provides that "[t]he court's failure to find upon a material issue upon which a finding of fact is required by this subdivision or this rule shall not be resolved by any presumption *441 and may be challenged under subdivision (B) of this rule; ..." See also Daly v. Nau (1975), Ind. App., 339 N.E.2d 71 .

1980However, TR. 52(D) now provides that “[t]he court’s failure to find upon a material issue upon which a finding of fact is required by this subdivision or this rule shall not be resolved by any presumption and may be challenged under subdivision (B) of this rule; . . . ” See also Daly v. Nau (1975), Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 71 .

11980–1980
Vaughan v. Atkinson green
scotus · 1962
2 sentences

1977NOTES [1] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-1 et seq. [2] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-10 reads: The costs of the proceedings shall be paid by the plaintiff, except that in case of contest, the additional costs thereby caused shall be paid as the court shall adjudge. [3] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-8 reads: ... the court may make such further orders, and render such findings and judgments as may seem just.... [4] TR. 41(A)(2) reads: Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and condition

1977NOTES [1] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-1 et seq. [2] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-10 reads: The costs of the proceedings shall be paid by the plaintiff, except that in case of contest, the additional costs thereby caused shall be paid as the court shall adjudge. [3] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-8 reads: ... the court may make such further orders, and render such findings and judgments as may seem just.... [4] TR. 41(A)(2) reads: Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and condition

11977–1977
Peter McEnteggart v. John M. Cataldo green
ca1 · 1971
1 sentence

1977NOTES [1] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-1 et seq. [2] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-10 reads: The costs of the proceedings shall be paid by the plaintiff, except that in case of contest, the additional costs thereby caused shall be paid as the court shall adjudge. [3] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-8 reads: ... the court may make such further orders, and render such findings and judgments as may seem just.... [4] TR. 41(A)(2) reads: Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and condition

11977–1977
ROLAX Et Al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. Et Al. green
ca4 · 1951
1 sentence

1977Co., 186 F.2d 473 (C.A.4 1951); 6 J.

11977–1977
Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia green
ca4 · 1963
1 sentence

1977NOTES [1] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-1 et seq. [2] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-10 reads: The costs of the proceedings shall be paid by the plaintiff, except that in case of contest, the additional costs thereby caused shall be paid as the court shall adjudge. [3] Ind. Code § 32-11-1-8 reads: ... the court may make such further orders, and render such findings and judgments as may seem just.... [4] TR. 41(A)(2) reads: Except as provided in subsection (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and condition

11977–1977
McElwaine-Richards Co. v. Wall neutral
ind · 1902
1 sentence

1905The subdivision of the rule above referred to, after providing the character of the statement of the evidence which appellant shall prepare where the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding is sought to be drawn in question, contains the following: “The statement will be taken to be accurate and sufficient for a full understanding of the questions presented for decision unless the opposite party in his brief shall make necessary corrections or additions.” In McElwaine-Richards Co. v. Wall (1902), 159 Ind. 557 , this court stated that said rule “exacts of the appellee the

11905–1905

Where else courts name it

NC 10 (1960–2019) CA 9 (1921–2022) IN 7 (1905–2025) FL 7 (1965–2025) TX 6 (1923–2022) MN 5 (1879–2014) WY 4 (1937–2021) PA 4 (1977–2021) AL 3 (2012–2015) VT 3 (2017–2024) RI 3 (2007–2012) NJ 2 (1972–2003) VA 2 (1956–2002) OH 2 (1933–2021) MI 2 (1916–1928) MD 2 (2006–2013) LA 2 (1971–1974) MO 2 (1967–2008) SD 2 (1911–2004) WV 2 (1998–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check