time-honored principle (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

time-honored principle in Indiana

6 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Brown v. Stategreen
indctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013In Brown v. State, 458 N.E.2d 245, 248-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), we noted “the time-honored principle that a statutory requirement of verification of pleadings is not jurisdictional.” Want of verification is waived if an objection is not presented at the earliest possible opportunity.

2013Id. at 249 .

11
State v. Garciagreen
ind · 1986 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Garcia, 500 N.E.2d at 163-64 (DeBruler, J. dissenting) (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Lori Barcroft v. State of Indiana green
ind · 2018
1 sentence

2020I respectfully dissent from this opinion fundamentally misapplying the time-honored standard of review this Court recently reaffirmed in Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018).

12020–2020
Farm Credit Services of Mid-America v. Indiana Department of State Revenue green
indtc · 1997
1 sentence

1999In Farm Credit *1092 Services, 677 N.E.2d at 647 , the Court stated that “[t]he parties do not dispute the time-honored rule that the federal government and its instrumentalities are immune from state and local taxation absent express waiver by Congress.” In this case, the Department contends that there is no such rule and that federal instrumentalities are subject to state taxation unless Congress expressly exempts them from state taxation.

11999–1999
Beecher v. White green
indctapp · 1983
1 sentence

1983As Judge Neal recently observed, "[i}n our decision we must be ever mindful that we are not engaged in the fabrication or selection of the wisest, or most desirable [,] of a number of possible courses in the common law." Beecher v. White (1983) Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 622 , Any other course would sound the death knell for the time honored principle that this court will not engage in judicial legislation.

11983–1983
Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. green
indctapp · 1978
2 sentences

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind. App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

11980–1980
State v. Beavers green
ind · 1948
2 sentences

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind. App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

11980–1980
Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. green
ind · 1948
2 sentences

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind. App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

1980Gross Income Tax Division v. National Bank & Trust Co. (1948), 226 Ind. 293 , 79 N.E.2d 651 ; Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cable Brazil, Inc. (1978), Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 555 .

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

CA 104 (1901–2025) PA 52 (1919–2018) FL 31 (1955–2014) NY 29 (1941–2023) TX 21 (1930–2026) TN 20 (1979–2022) IL 15 (1947–2005) VA 15 (1996–2026) OK 14 (1961–2020) GA 13 (1934–2008) MO 13 (1913–2018) CT 12 (1985–2021) OH 11 (1983–2017) MI 10 (1966–2025) IA 9 (1961–2026) KS 9 (1970–2018) MD 8 (1991–2026) MS 8 (1969–2017) WI 7 (1940–2023) LA 6 (1971–2024) NJ 6 (1951–2010) IN 6 (1980–2020) UT 6 (1951–2019) DE 5 (1966–1997) AL 4 (1975–1992) MN 4 (1984–2000) WV 4 (1932–2013) WA 4 (1899–1970) ID 4 (1959–2017) CO 4 (1998–2026) AZ 3 (1971–1994) MT 3 (1935–2002) RI 3 (1983–2010) KY 3 (1968–2012) NC 3 (1995–2010) OR 2 (2001–2019) NV 2 (1942–1985) AR 2 (1986–1998) ND 2 (1980–1994) NM 2 (1955–2025) WY 2 (1981–1981) DC 2 (1947–1995) HI 2 (1967–2002) ME 2 (1976–1978)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check