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.
42 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Row v. Holtgreen2 sentences2008Row v. Holt, 864 N.E.2d 1011, 1013 (Ind.2007). 2008Row v. Holt, 864 N.E.2d 1011, 1013 (Ind.2007). | 4 | 4 |
ASBESTOS CORP. LTD. v. Akaiwagreen2 sentences2008Asbestos Corp., Ltd. v. Akaiwa, 872 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2001)). 2008Asbestos Corp. v. Akaiwa, 872 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2001)). | 4 | 4 |
Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobbgreen2 sentences2008Asbestos Corp., Ltd. v. Akaiwa, 872 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2001)). 2008Asbestos Corp. v. Akaiwa, 872 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2001)). | 4 | 4 |
Lean v. Reedgreen2 sentences2010Lean v. Reed, 876 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (Ind.2007). 2010Lean v. Reed, 876 N.E.2d 1104, 1107 (Ind.2007). | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Jackson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 615, 618 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 2011Jackson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 615, 618 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Divello v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Divello v. State, 782 N.E.2d 433, 436 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied, 792 N.E.2d 43 . 2004Divello v. State, 782 N.E.2d 433, 436 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied 792 N.E.2d 43 (Ind.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Tharpgreen2 sentences2015“A fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 2015DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our standard of review for summary judgment is well-established: We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of . . . the non- moving parties, summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Turner v. State, 862 N.E.2d 695, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Stategreen1 sentence2014DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our standard of review of probation revocations is well-settled: A probation revocation hearing “is not to be equated with an adversarial criminal proceeding.” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Richmond Power and Light Co.green1 sentence2013Turner v. Richmond Power and Light Co., 763 N.E.2d 1005, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Pruitt v. Stateyellow1 sentence2012Pruitt v. State, 934 N.E.2d 767, 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Finkgreen1 sentence2011Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343, 346 (Ind.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Integon v. Singletongreen2 sentences2010Integon v. Singleton, 795 N.E.2d 511, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). - The moving party must designate sufficient evidence to eliminate any genuine factual issues, and once the moving party has done so, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forth with contrary evidence. 3 Id. at 513-14 . 2010Integon v. Singleton, 795 N.E.2d 511, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). - The moving party must designate sufficient evidence to eliminate any genuine factual issues, and once the moving party has done so, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forth with contrary evidence. 3 Id. at 513-14 . | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Lake George Cottagers Ass'ngreen1 sentence2010Ind. Dept. of Natural Res. v. Lake George Cottagers Ass'n, 889 N.E.2d 361, 363 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Board of School Commissioners v. Pettigrewgreen1 sentence2010Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Bd. of Sch Comm'rs of City of Indianapolis v. Pettigrew, 851 N.E.2d 326, 330 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Maxwell v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
GKN Co. v. Magnessgreen1 sentence2008GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.2001) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Dekalb County Surveyor's Officegreen1 sentence2007Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. DeKalb County Surveyor’s Office, 850 N.E.2d 957, 962-63 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Sims v. Beamergreen1 sentence2007Sims v. Beamer, 757 N.E.2d 1021, 1024 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Bushong v. Williamsongreen1 sentence2006Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Bushong v. Williamson, 790 N.E.2d 467, 478 (Ind.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Mangold Ex Rel. Mangold v. Indiana Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2005Ind. Trial Rule 56(C);, Mangold, 756 N.E.2d at 978. | 1 | 1 |
Shell Oil Co. v. Lovold Co.green1 sentence2003Shell Oil Co. v. Lovold Co., 705 N.E.2d 981, 982 (Ind.1998), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See, eg., Edwards, 759 N.E.2d at 630 (discussing admissibility under the Fourth Amendment of evidence gathered by warrantless search); Carter v. State, 730 N.E.2d 155, 157 (Ind.2000) (discussing admissibility of confession under the Fifth Amendment). *1115 DISCUSSION AND DECISION At issue in this case is the admissibility of medical records obtained from a hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. 6 To obtain the documents, Trooper Ashby presented an Indiana subpoena duces tecum and a Kentucky subpoena duces teeum to the hospital's medical records office, and the Clark County Prosecutor's Office prese | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See, eg., Edwards, 759 N.E.2d at 630 (discussing admissibility under the Fourth Amendment of evidence gathered by warrantless search); Carter v. State, 730 N.E.2d 155, 157 (Ind.2000) (discussing admissibility of confession under the Fifth Amendment). *1115 DISCUSSION AND DECISION At issue in this case is the admissibility of medical records obtained from a hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. 6 To obtain the documents, Trooper Ashby presented an Indiana subpoena duces tecum and a Kentucky subpoena duces teeum to the hospital's medical records office, and the Clark County Prosecutor's Office prese | 1 | 1 |
Quillen v. Quillengreen2 sentences2002Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996); Euler v. Euler, 537 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). 2002Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996); Euler v. Euler, 537 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Euler v. Eulergreen2 sentences2002Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996); Euler v. Euler, 537 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). 2002Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996); Euler v. Euler, 537 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
A.M. v. Roman Catholic Churchgreen1 sentence1998A.M. v. Roman Catholic Church, 669 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. Purvisgreen1 sentence1998Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. Purvis, 691 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Alfaro v. Stauffer Chemical Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Savings & Loan Ass'n of Central Indiana v. Treaster
green
2 sentences1987Brenneman Mechanical and Electrical, Inc. v. First National Bank of Logansport (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 233 , (transfer pending); First Savings and Loan Assn. v. Treaster (1986), Ind.App., 490 N.E.2d 1149 , trams. denied. 1987First Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Treaster (1986), Ind.App., 490 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 , trans. denied. | 3 | 1987–1987 |
LaPalme v. Romero
green
1 sentence1994LaPalme v. Romero (1993), Ind., 621 N.E.2d 1102, 1104 , reh’g denied (citations omitted). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Parsons v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Griffin v. California green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Parsons v. Indiana neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Brenneman Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. v. First National Bank of Logansport green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Bottema v. PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK ASSN. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Keenan Hotel Co. v. Funk green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.