genuineness claim in Indiana

6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2014 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Rodrigues v. Stategreen haw · 1970 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Id. at 519-20 (citations omitted). 1 I agree with the Supreme Court of Ha-wail's enlightened rationale, and I see no legally or logically defensible reason why the Ketchmarks should not be able to seek recovery for the emotional trauma resulting from the complete destruction of the home in which they had lived for nearly half a century. 2004Id. at 519-20 (citations omitted). [1] I agree with the Supreme Court of Hawaii's enlightened rationale, and I see no legally or logically defensible reason why the Ketchmarks should not be able to seek recovery for the emotional trauma resulting from the complete destruction of the home in which they had lived for nearly half a century.	1	1
Huspon v. Stategreen ind · 1989 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996In Huspon v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1078, 1082 (Ind.1989), the court set out the three approved methods for demonstrating the genuineness of a standard to be used as a handwriting exemplar. 1996Id.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Manitowoc Public Schools Self-Insured v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund green wis · 2003 2 sentences 2014These cases pointed out that this temporal requirement guaranteed the genuineness of the claim and assured that recovery would not unreasonably burden the defendant — the two major public policy concerns of “bystander” claims set forth in Bowen Finnegan, 666 N.W.2d at 802-03 ; Rosin, 588 N.W.2d at 61 . 2007Finnegan, 666 N.W.2d at 802-03 ; Rosin, 588 N.W.2d at 61 .	2	2007–2014
Rosin v. Fort Howard Corp. green wisctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2014These cases pointed out that this temporal requirement guaranteed the genuineness of the claim and assured that recovery would not unreasonably burden the defendant — the two major public policy concerns of “bystander” claims set forth in Bowen Finnegan, 666 N.W.2d at 802-03 ; Rosin, 588 N.W.2d at 61 . 2007Finnegan, 666 N.W.2d at 802-03 ; Rosin, 588 N.W.2d at 61 .	2	2007–2014
Wininger v. State green indctapp · 1988 1 sentence 1989Wininger v. State (1988), Ind.App., 526 N.E.2d 1216 .	1	1989–1989
State v. Ryno neutral kan · 1904 2 sentences 1919State v. Ryno (1904), 68 Kan. 348 , 74 Pac. 1114 , 64 L. 1919State v. Ryno (1904), 68 Kan. 348 , 74 Pac. 1114 , 64 L.	1	1919–1919
Hyde v. Woolfolk neutral iowa · 1855 1 sentence 1919Hyde v. Woolfolk (1885), 1 Iowa 159 ; Baker v. Haines (1841), 6 Whart.	1	1919–1919

Where else courts name it

FL 43 (1983–2026) NY 20 (1907–2023) MI 8 (1894–1989) IN 6 (1919–2014) NJ 5 (1988–2014) HI 4 (1970–1981) NM 4 (1990–1996) VT 4 (1888–2025) TX 3 (1848–2018) CA 3 (1989–2025) PA 3 (1974–1988) ID 2 (1989–1994) AZ 2 (1971–2011) OH 2 (1983–2024) WI 2 (1989–1996)

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