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 1996–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Martingreen2 sentences2015See Martin, 170 Ind. App. at 524 , 353 N.E.2d at 477 . 2015See Martin, 170 Ind. App. at 524 , 353 N.E.2d at 477 . | 2 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Prewettgreen1 sentence2010"As long as the trial court is apprised of the specific material upon which the parties rely in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, then the material may be considered." Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234, 1241 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), *201 trans. denied (holding that, where party's designation merely listed - depositions which were not attached to the designation, even broad references within the party's motion may be specific enough for summary judgment designation as long as the trial court is advised of the specific material upon which the party relies). | 1 | 1 |
Chissell v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Chissell, 705 N.E.2d at 504 (holding that the defendant was not denied due process where the evidence was not materially exculpatory and the defendant failed to. demonstrate bad faith on the part of the police). | 1 | 1 |
McKENNA v. Turpingreen2 sentences1996Therefore, the trial court was correct not to consider that claim when ruling on NDC’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings. 7 “A decree in equity, like a judgment at law, cannot stand when it has no pleading to support it.” McKenna v. Turpin, 128 Ind.App. 636, 641 , 151 N.E.2d 303, 305 (1958). 1996Therefore, the trial court was correct not to consider that claim when ruling on NDC’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings. 7 “A decree in equity, like a judgment at law, cannot stand when it has no pleading to support it.” McKenna v. Turpin, 128 Ind.App. 636, 641 , 151 N.E.2d 303, 305 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moser v. Moser
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 533 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
May v. Dobbins
green
2 sentences2005May, 166 Ind. at 334 , 77 N.E. at 354-55 . 3 While cases listing the elements of adverse possession frequently recite that the adverse claimant must occupy the land under a claim of right, that claim of right can be established by entering upon and occupying land with the intent to hold the land as one's own. 2005May, 166 Ind. at 334 , 77 N.E. at 354-55 . [3] While cases listing the elements of adverse possession frequently recite that the adverse claimant must occupy the land under a claim of right, that claim of right can be established by entering upon and occupying land with the intent to hold the land as one's own. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.