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 1 courts 1982–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Inc.green1 sentence2016Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Servs., Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 745 (Ind. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kuehl v. Hoyle
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Martin v. Richey
green
1 sentence2002Martin, 711 N.E.2d at 1279 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Peake v. International Harvester Co.
green
1 sentence2001For example, in Peake v. International Harvester Co., 489 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), trans. denied, we held that a collective bargaining agreement between a former employee's union and his former employer was not a "written contract" within the statute-of-limitation exception for actions arising from employment agreements not in writing, and thus, the statute of limitation applied. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bank One Indianapolis, N.A. v. Norton
green
1 sentence1994Id. at 1041 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Guy v. SCHULDT
green
2 sentences1982Before we address whether summary judgment was properly entered, we note that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment is as applicable to the statute of limitations defense under I.C. 16-9.5-3-1 as it was to the statute of limitation defense based upon the former medical malpractice act. 3 See, Guy v. Schuldt, (1956) 236 Ind. 101 , 138 N.E.2d 891 . 1982Before we address whether summary judgment was properly entered, we note that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment is as applicable to the statute of limitations defense under I.C. 16-9.5-3-1 as it was to the statute of limitation defense based upon the former medical malpractice act. 3 See, Guy v. Schuldt, (1956) 236 Ind. 101 , 138 N.E.2d 891 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.