6 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1897–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Visitation of ARgreen2 sentences2015This is especially true where the case is one of first impression, even if “rudimentary legal reasoning” would have led a person to believe the *1060 Indiana courts probably would rule against the person raising the claim. 723 N.E.2d 476 , 480 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (internal citations omitted). [25] In response to this argument, the City disputes the applicability of that case and the notion that this is a case of first impression at all, in light of the “wholly unsupported theories” that formed the basis of Kitchell’s claims. 2011A claim is not frivolous, however, if it presents an issue of first impression, “even if ‘rudimentary legal reasoning’ would have led a person to believe the Indiana courts probably would rule against the person raising the claim.” In re Visitation of A.R., 723 N.E.2d 476, 480 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Watson v. Thibodeaugreen2 sentences2000Watson v. Thibodeau, 559 N.E.2d 1205, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). 2000Watson v. Thibodeau, 559 N.E.2d 1205, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shepard v. Schurz Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1609-PL-2132 | July 5, 2017 Page 6 of 16 [11] Finally, the Anti-SLAPP Statute does not “supplant the Indiana common law of defamation,” but requires the person raising the defense to establish that his speech was “lawful.” Shepard, 847 N.E.2d at 224 (citing I.C. § 34-7-7-9(d)). 2017Finally, the Anti-SLAPP Statute does not “supplant the Indiana common law of defamation,” but requires the person raising the defense to establish that his speech was “lawful.” Shepard, 847 N.E.2d at 224 (citing I.C. § 34-7-7-9(d)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Exchange Bank v. Ault
neutral
1 sentence1897Bailey v. Rinker, 146 Ind. 129 ; Shoemaker v. South Bend Spark Arrester Co., 135 Ind. 471; Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406 ; Exchange Bank v. Ault, 102 Ind. 322 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Nichols v. State
green
1 sentence1897Bailey v. Rinker, 146 Ind. 129 ; Shoemaker v. South Bend Spark Arrester Co., 135 Ind. 471; Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406 ; Exchange Bank v. Ault, 102 Ind. 322 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Shoemaker v. South Bend Spark Arrester Co.
green
1 sentence1897Bailey v. Rinker, 146 Ind. 129 ; Shoemaker v. South Bend Spark Arrester Co., 135 Ind. 471; Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406 ; Exchange Bank v. Ault, 102 Ind. 322 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Bailey v. Rinker
green
1 sentence1897Bailey v. Rinker, 146 Ind. 129 ; Shoemaker v. South Bend Spark Arrester Co., 135 Ind. 471; Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406 ; Exchange Bank v. Ault, 102 Ind. 322 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.