5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Ronald J. Goldberggreen1 sentence2011In United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1099 (3rd Cir.1995), the court examined the concepts of waiver, forfeiture, and waiver by conduct, noting that while the terms have very distinct meanings, they have often been used interchangeably. | 1 | 1 |
Crafton v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2007We recognize that language in Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), may seem to intertwine the concepts of the presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest and the special weight given to a parent’s decision. 2007See id. at 96 ("As such, the trial court was required ... to give special weight to her decision not to allow Gibson visitation with her minor children. | 1 | 1 |
Propes v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maxey v. State
green
1 sentence1994Maxey v. State (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 908, 910-911 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Schiro v. State
green
1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Baum v. State
green
1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bailey v. State
green
1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Schiro v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. 1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Perkins v. State
green
1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Leon v. United States
green
1 sentence1992See Propes v. State (1990) Ind., 550 N.E.2d 755 ; Perkins v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 927 ; Schiro v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1201 , cert. denied 475 U.S. 1036 , 106 S.Ct. 1247 , 89 L.Ed.2d 355 ; Baum v. State (1989) Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200 ; Bailey v. State (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260 ; Palmer v. State (1990) 2d Dist. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Kline v. Kramer
green
2 sentences1981But other jurisdictions examining claims of waiver and estoppel in the notice requirement context have used both terms to mean "estoppel." Thus, one who claims estoppel or waiver in the notice statute situation must be "without knowledge or reasonable means of knowing the true facts." Kline, supra . 1981But other jurisdictions examining claims of waiver and estoppel in the notice requirement context have used both terms to mean “estoppel.” Thus, one who claims estoppel or waiver in the notice statute situation must be “without knowledge or reasonable means of knowing the true facts.” Kline, supra. In other words, he must have reasonably relied upon the other party’s representation: The sum of the holdings in recent years has been that when responsible agents or officials of a city have actual knowledge of the occurrence which causes injury and they pursue an investigation which reveals substa | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.