Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1876–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. McCoygreen2 sentences2017See 30 Ind.App. at 556-57 , 66 N.E. at 701 (“[I]n this complaint there is no allegation that an easement had been marked out, located or existed over and across appellees’ land prior to the time this action was commenced.”). 8 And in Shedd, this Court cited the rule in considering whether the dominant tenant’s successful complaint to enjoin the servient tenants from interfering with the extension of sewer discharge and water intake pipelines across an easement and into Lake Michigan was sufficient to state a claim, where it did not describe the dimensions or location of the easement or show th 2017See 30 Ind.App. at 556-57 , 66 N.E. at 701 (“[I]n this complaint there is no allegation that an easement had been marked out, located or existed over and across appellees’ land prior to the time this action was commenced.”). 8 And in Shedd, this Court cited the rule in considering whether the dominant tenant’s successful complaint to enjoin the servient tenants from interfering with the extension of sewer discharge and water intake pipelines across an easement and into Lake Michigan was sufficient to state a claim, where it did not describe the dimensions or location of the easement or show th | 1 | 1 |
Shedd v. American Maize Products Co.green1 sentence2017See 30 Ind.App. at 556-57 , 66 N.E. at 701 (“[I]n this complaint there is no allegation that an easement had been marked out, located or existed over and across appellees’ land prior to the time this action was commenced.”). 8 And in Shedd, this Court cited the rule in considering whether the dominant tenant’s successful complaint to enjoin the servient tenants from interfering with the extension of sewer discharge and water intake pipelines across an easement and into Lake Michigan was sufficient to state a claim, where it did not describe the dimensions or location of the easement or show th | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id.; see also King v. State, 799 N.E.2d 42, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that because defendant objected at trial on relevancy grounds, he waived his Rule 404(b) argument on appeal), trans. denied. [17] “In any event, evidence admitted in violation of Evidence Rules 402, 403, or 404 will not require a conviction to be reversed ‘if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.’” Houser, 823 N.E.2d at 698 (quoting Bassett v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1050, 1054 (Ind. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Houser v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id.; see also King v. State, 799 N.E.2d 42, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that because defendant objected at trial on relevancy grounds, he waived his Rule 404(b) argument on appeal), trans. denied. [17] “In any event, evidence admitted in violation of Evidence Rules 402, 403, or 404 will not require a conviction to be reversed ‘if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.’” Houser, 823 N.E.2d at 698 (quoting Bassett v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1050, 1054 (Ind. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Bassett v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id.; see also King v. State, 799 N.E.2d 42, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that because defendant objected at trial on relevancy grounds, he waived his Rule 404(b) argument on appeal), trans. denied. [17] “In any event, evidence admitted in violation of Evidence Rules 402, 403, or 404 will not require a conviction to be reversed ‘if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.’” Houser, 823 N.E.2d at 698 (quoting Bassett v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1050, 1054 (Ind. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Koller v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2000The court observed that a party is “aggrieved if the judgment bears directly and injuriously upon his or her interests.” Id. at 800. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hendrickson v. Binkley
green
2 sentences2009Then, citing Hendrickson v. Binkley, 161 Ind.App. 388 , 316 N.E.2d 376 (1974), the trial court declared that to overcome the presumption, a third party seeking custody must show by clear and convincing evidence either (i) unfitness on the part of the parent, (i) long acquiescence in the third party's custody of the child, or (fii) voluntary relinquishment of the child such that the affections of the child and third party have become so interwoven that to sever them would seriously mar and endanger the future happiness of the child. 2009Then, citing Hendrickson v. Binkley, 161 Ind.App. 388 , 316 N.E.2d 376 (1974), the trial court declared that to overcome the presumption, a third party seeking custody must show by clear and convincing evidence either (i) unfitness on the part of the parent, (i) long acquiescence in the third party's custody of the child, or (fii) voluntary relinquishment of the child such that the affections of the child and third party have become so interwoven that to sever them would seriously mar and endanger the future happiness of the child. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. MONNINGER
green
2 sentences1974However, he urges that they were covered by his previous objection to the question concerning the condition of Garrett’s residence, citing the following rule found in State v. Monninger (1962), 243 Ind. 174 , 182 N.E.2d 426 : “*** where a sufficient and specific objection has been made to testimony, it is not necessary to repeat the objection whenever testimony of the same class is offered. * * *” We are of the opinion that the above cited rule is not applicable in the case at bar. 1974However, he urges that they were covered by his previous objection to the question concerning the condition of Garrett’s residence, citing the following rule found in State v. Monninger (1962), 243 Ind. 174 , 182 N.E.2d 426 : “*** where a sufficient and specific objection has been made to testimony, it is not necessary to repeat the objection whenever testimony of the same class is offered. * * *” We are of the opinion that the above cited rule is not applicable in the case at bar. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Clements v. Robinson
neutral
1 sentence1876This decision is in strict harmony with the decision of this court, in the case of Clements et ux. v. Hobinson, 54 Ind. 599 , at the present term, where the above cited clause of our redemption act is carefully considered and passed upon. | 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.