7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1876–1918 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet
green
1 sentence1918Mellette v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1909), 45 Ind. App. 88 , 86 N. E. 432 ; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet (1891), 129 Ind. 327, 336 , 27 N. E. 741 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Dick v. Mullins
green
1 sentence1918Mellette v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1909), 45 Ind. App. 88 , 86 N. E. 432 ; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet (1891), 129 Ind. 327, 336 , 27 N. E. 741 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Mellette v. Indianapolis Northern Traction Co.
neutral
2 sentences1918Mellette v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1909), 45 Ind. App. 88 , 86 N. E. 432 ; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet (1891), 129 Ind. 327, 336 , 27 N. E. 741 . 1918Mellette v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1909), 45 Ind. App. 88 , 86 N. E. 432 ; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet (1891), 129 Ind. 327, 336 , 27 N. E. 741 . | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Gayler v. Wilder
green
1 sentence1916(U. S.) 476, 13 L. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works
green
2 sentences1905Nonresidence is recognized as a basis for tbe remedy in tbe following cases: Forbes v. Cooper & Co. (1889), 88 Ky. 285 , 11 S. W. 24 ; Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works (1898), 104 Ga. 116 , 30 S. E. 676 , 31 S. E. 401 ; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105 Ill. 578, 587 ; Edminson v. Baxter (1817), 4 Hay. 1905Nonresidence is recognized as a basis for tbe remedy in tbe following cases: Forbes v. Cooper & Co. (1889), 88 Ky. 285 , 11 S. W. 24 ; Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works (1898), 104 Ga. 116 , 30 S. E. 676 , 31 S. E. 401 ; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105 Ill. 578, 587 ; Edminson v. Baxter (1817), 4 Hay. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Quick v. Lemon
neutral
1 sentence1905Nonresidence is recognized as a basis for tbe remedy in tbe following cases: Forbes v. Cooper & Co. (1889), 88 Ky. 285 , 11 S. W. 24 ; Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works (1898), 104 Ga. 116 , 30 S. E. 676 , 31 S. E. 401 ; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105 Ill. 578, 587 ; Edminson v. Baxter (1817), 4 Hay. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Keightley v. Walls
neutral
1 sentence1905With respect to nonresidence as a ground for an application of tbe principle, Erazer, J., in Keightley v. Walls (1865), 24 Ind. 205 , says: “Tbe rule in equity seems to be, not to grant tbe relief where tbe demands are wholly disconnected, as in this case, unless there are some special circumstances, such as tbe insolvency or nonresidence of tbe defendant, or other extraneous facts, to form tbe basis of equity jurisdiction.” See, also, Hannon v. Hilliard (1882), 83 Ind. 362, 366 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Willis v. State
neutral
1 sentence1905Willis v. State (1878), 62 Ind. 391 ; Burke v. State (1880), 72 Ind. 392 ; Sturm v. State (1881), 74 Ind. 278 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Burke v. State
neutral
1 sentence1905Willis v. State (1878), 62 Ind. 391 ; Burke v. State (1880), 72 Ind. 392 ; Sturm v. State (1881), 74 Ind. 278 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Sturm v. State
neutral
1 sentence1905Willis v. State (1878), 62 Ind. 391 ; Burke v. State (1880), 72 Ind. 392 ; Sturm v. State (1881), 74 Ind. 278 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Hannon v. Hilliard
neutral
1 sentence1905With respect to nonresidence as a ground for an application of tbe principle, Erazer, J., in Keightley v. Walls (1865), 24 Ind. 205 , says: “Tbe rule in equity seems to be, not to grant tbe relief where tbe demands are wholly disconnected, as in this case, unless there are some special circumstances, such as tbe insolvency or nonresidence of tbe defendant, or other extraneous facts, to form tbe basis of equity jurisdiction.” See, also, Hannon v. Hilliard (1882), 83 Ind. 362, 366 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Forbes & Bro. v. Cooper & Co.
green
2 sentences1905Nonresidence is recognized as a basis for tbe remedy in tbe following cases: Forbes v. Cooper & Co. (1889), 88 Ky. 285 , 11 S. W. 24 ; Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works (1898), 104 Ga. 116 , 30 S. E. 676 , 31 S. E. 401 ; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105 Ill. 578, 587 ; Edminson v. Baxter (1817), 4 Hay. 1905Nonresidence is recognized as a basis for tbe remedy in tbe following cases: Forbes v. Cooper & Co. (1889), 88 Ky. 285 , 11 S. W. 24 ; Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works (1898), 104 Ga. 116 , 30 S. E. 676 , 31 S. E. 401 ; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105 Ill. 578, 587 ; Edminson v. Baxter (1817), 4 Hay. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Knarr v. Conaway
green
1 sentence1900Knarr v. Conoway, 42 Ind. 260 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Holderman, 69 Ind. 18 . | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Pennsylvania Co. v. Holderman
neutral
1 sentence1900Knarr v. Conoway, 42 Ind. 260 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Holderman, 69 Ind. 18 . | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Lemmon v. Moore
green
1 sentence1897Lemmon v. Moore, 94 Ind. 40 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Kirby v. Cannon
green
1 sentence1876Kirby v. Cannon, 9 Ind. 371 . | 1 | 1876–1876 |
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.