5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Davisgreen1 sentence2015Hill v. Davis, 850 N.E.2d 993, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). [34] We have previously applied the following guidelines in our review of an attorney fee claim issue: A claim is frivolous (a) if it is taken primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring a person, or (b) if the lawyer is unable to make a good faith and rational argument on the merits of the action, or (c) if the lawyer is unable to support the action taken by a good faith and rational argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Trading Company v. Refco, Inc., and Refco Capital Corporationgreen1 sentence2015See Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, _ Inc., 229 F.3d 617, 627 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that the determination of a reasonable award of attorney fees when the award was contractually-based was an issue “to be resolved after the trial on the ■basis of the judgment entered at trial,” not an issue triable by the jury), amended on denial ofreh’g. [33] - Notably, the Second Circuit has recognized a distinction in cases where an attorney fee claim is based on a contractual provision. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Best
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 110-111 , 886 N.E.2d at 941 . [20] In determining that “[c]onstruing the agreement will indeed terminate a significant part of the parties’ controversy” – and thus Steven had satisfied the termination-of-controversy requirement – the Illinois Supreme Court noted that no question will remain as to “whether the agreement’s provisions provide the controlling authority over the parties’ dissolution rights.” Id. at 117 , 886 N.E.2d at 944 . 2017Id. at 110-111 , 886 N.E.2d at 941 . [20] In determining that “[c]onstruing the agreement will indeed terminate a significant part of the parties’ controversy” – and thus Steven had satisfied the termination-of-controversy requirement – the Illinois Supreme Court noted that no question will remain as to “whether the agreement’s provisions provide the controlling authority over the parties’ dissolution rights.” Id. at 117 , 886 N.E.2d at 944 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hagge v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance
green
2 sentences1999However, the court in Hagge also implied that the outcome may have been different had the case been a class action lawsuit, stating that “affected retirees had no opportunity to 'opt out' and avoid the attorney fee claim ... [and] there is no evidence in the record that all 13,000 retirees had actual knowledge of the ... litigation.” Hagge, supra at 149 . 51 . 1999This appears to be a reasonable rationale with regard to tax refunds as opposed to the narrow view taken by the Iowa Court in Hagge, supra, to the effect that the entire amount of each tax refund must be paid to the individual taxpayer and to no other. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
U. S. Aircraft Financing, Inc. v. Jankovich
green
1 sentence1983Id. at 296 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.