Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-51-3-2 (2026)
Necessity of evidence of facts
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. Before a person may recover punitive damages in any civil action, that person must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the facts that are relied upon by that person to support the recovery of punitive damages.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-34-2.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003).
Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003). “Ind.Code § 34-51-3-2 (1998). Whether punitive damages may be awarded is usually a question of fact.”
Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). “Indiana Ind. Code § 34-51-3-2 (2004) (clear and convincing evidence).”
Wohlwend v. Edwards, 796 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “See also Ind.Code § 34-51-3-2 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Stroud v. Lints, 790 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. 2003). “Ind. Code § 34-51-3-2 (1998). In this case, the trial court did not enter any specific findings of fact, but merely found that punitive damages were appropriate.”
Ralph Andrews v. Mor/Ryde Int'l, Inc., 10 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. 2014). “I.C. §§ 34-51-3-2, -6 (2008) (generally, the “Punitive Damages Act” or just “the Act”).”
State of Indiana v. John Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2013). “In addition to modifying the burden of proof required to recover punitive damages, Ind.Code § 34-51-3-2 (2008), it provides that: A punitive damage award may not be more than the greater of: (1) three (3) times the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the action; or (2)…”
Maria F. Juarez v. Menard, Inc., 366 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2004). “Ind.Code § 34-51-3-2. Thus in Indiana, before a court may award punitive damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence or oppressiveness that was not the result of mistake of fact or law,…”
Cheatham v. Pohle, 764 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Ind.Code § 34-51-3-2 (emphasis added). The "clear and convincing evidence" standard, while not as onerous as the criminal realm's "beyond a reasonable doubt," is considerably higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.”
Rachel Staggs v. Corena Buxbaum, 60 N.E.3d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Staggs asserts that, under Wysocki , which held that damages under the CVRA were discretionary, such damages must be awarded pursuant to a clear and convincing evidence standard per the Punitive Damages Act, found at Ind.Code §§ 34-51-3-2, -6. She also argues that, accordingly,…”
Gorman v. Gorman, 871 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The trial courts in both cases concluded in their findings that William and Neff had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Judith’s claims against them were frivolous, unreasonable and groundless as required by Indiana Code Section 34-51-3-2, and that she had litigated…”
Ralph Andrews v. MOR/Ryde Int'l, Inc., 2 N.E.3d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “On July 23, 2012, Mor/Ryde filed a pleading seeking a ruling from the court that any exemplary damages awarded under the Act are punitive in nature and, therefore, would be subject to the heightened evidentiary standard and distribution procedures outlined in Indiana Code §§…”
Rohrman Auto. Grp. v. Paul Pratico & Joy DenHouter (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Code § 34-51-3-2 (“Before a person may recover punitive damages in any civil action, that person must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the facts that are relied upon by that person to support the recovery of punitive damages.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.