6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2020 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 L. Hale v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020“Our standard of review in discovery matters is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Hale v. State, 54 N.E.3d 355, 357 (Ind. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Combsgreen2 sentences2012Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692, 724-25 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s award of prejudgment interest for a bad faith breach of contract claim because the jury’s verdict was general and did not specify the elements of the plaintiff's damages and thus the court could not have determined if any portion of those damages were ascertainable in accordance with the Roper standard. *149 Notably, the court in Lumbermens did not specifically consider the abrogation issue. 2012Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692, 724-25 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s award of prejudgment interest for a bad faith breach of contract claim because the jury’s verdict was general and did not specify the elements of the plaintiff's damages and thus the court could not have determined if any portion of those damages were ascertainable in accordance with the Roper standard. *149 Notably, the court in Lumbermens did not specifically consider the abrogation issue. | 1 | 1 |
Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), 2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), | 1 | 1 |
Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Marketing & Development, Inc.green2 sentences2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), 2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Grahamgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Graham (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 1139 ; Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 311 , 302 N.E.2d 816 . 1995See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Graham (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 1139 ; Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 311 , 302 N.E.2d 816 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), 2012Thor Electric, Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 380-81 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (allowing 8% interest under Indiana Code Sections 24-4.6-1-102, -103 in a contract action where “the terms of the contract [made] the claim ascertainable”), trans. not sought, disapproved on other grounds by Inman, 981 N.E.2d at 1205 ; Blue Valley Turf Farms, Inc. v. Realestate Mktg. & Dev., Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1088, 1090-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (stating that under the statute, damages must be “ascertain[able] as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of evaluation”), | 1 | 2012–2012 |
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Roper
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 508-09 , 96 N.E. at 472-73 . 12 Philadelphia states that courts have continued to follow the Roper rule 13 and contends *1065 that nothing in the Prejudgment Interest Act "abrogates the common law as to prejudgment interest for readily-ascertainable tort claims for property losses." Appel-lee's Br. at 48. 2005Id. at 508-09 , 96 N.E. at 472-73 . 12 Philadelphia states that courts have continued to follow the Roper rule 13 and contends *1065 that nothing in the Prejudgment Interest Act "abrogates the common law as to prejudgment interest for readily-ascertainable tort claims for property losses." Appel-lee's Br. at 48. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Graham (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 1139 ; Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 311 , 302 N.E.2d 816 . 1995See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Graham (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 1139 ; Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 311 , 302 N.E.2d 816 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Edmund Luksus v. United Pacific Insurance Co., a Washington Corporation
green
2 sentences1980Co., (7th Cir. 1971) 452 F.2d 207, 210 , the Roper test was described as follows: The test, the Court said, was whether injury and consequent damage was complete, must be ascertained as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value, which a Court or jury must follow in fixing the amount, as distinguished from using one’s best judgment to assess the amount for past and future injury or elements not measurable by fixed standards of value. 1980Co., (7th Cir. 1971) 452 F.2d 207, 210 , the Roper test was described as follows: The test, the Court said, was whether injury and consequent damage was complete, must be ascertained as of a particular time in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value, which a Court or jury must follow in fixing the amount, as distinguished from using one’s best judgment to assess the amount for past and future injury or elements not measurable by fixed standards of value. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
North Shore Sewer And Water, Inc. v. Corbetta Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1973In North Shore Sewer & Water, Inc. v. Corbetta Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1968), 395 F.2d 145 , the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a grant of prejudgment interest to the Appellants. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Richard J. Rauser v. Ltv Electrosystems, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973Three years later in the decision, Rauser v. LTV Electrosystems, Inc. (7th Cir. 1971), 437 F.2d 800 , the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the Roper test had been satisfied in an action by an employee against his former employer for breach of a stock option agreement. 1973Three years later in the decision, Rauser v. LTV Electrosystems, Inc. (7th Cir. 1971), 437 F.2d 800 , the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the Roper test had been satisfied in an action by an employee against his former employer for breach of a stock option agreement. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.