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 1998–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.green1 sentence2017Id. at 1228,1246 . | 1 | 1 |
Penn Harris Madison School Corp. v. Howardgreen1 sentence2014Corp. v. Howard, 861 N.E.2d 1190, 1193 (Ind.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Central Soya Co., Inc.green2 sentences2000Further, the court held with regard to the plaintiffs negligence claim that “[economic losses are not recoverable in a negligence action premised on the failure of a product to perform as expected unless such failure causes personal injury or physical harm to property other than the product itself.” Id. at 1091. 2000See also Reed, supra, 621 N.E.2d at 1074 (holding that dairy farmers could not recover under the Act for allegedly defective feed). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Hunt v. Board of Com'rs of Henry Countygreen1 sentence1998“In order for a plaintiffs negligence to bar his recovery, his negligence must be a proximate cause, not a remote cause, of his injuries.” Estate of Hunt v. Board of Commr’s of Henry County, 526 N.E.2d 1230, 1236 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), trans. denied (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc.
red
2 sentences2010In Martin Ris-pens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., the plaintiffs negligence claim alleged defendant had marketed infected seeds that failed to perform as expected, leaving plaintiff with a damaged crop that resulted in lost profits. 621 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind.1993). 1999With regard to the plaintiffs negligence claim, the court held that “[ejconomic losses are not recoverable in a negligence action premised on the failure of a product to perform as expected unless such failure causes personal injury or physical harm to property other than the product itself.” Id. at 1091 . | 2 | 1999–2010 |
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.