Kitchell v. Franklin

Docket Number09S00-1307-PL-476
Decision Date13 November 2013

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
57 cases
  • League of Women Voters of Ind., Inc. v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 19, 2021
    ...justices have warned that "[c]ourts may not engraft new words onto a statute or add restrictions where none exist." Kitchell v. Franklin , 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).At first glance, Act 334 appears to be consistent with the voter-removal procedures of th......
  • Reinoehl v. St. Joseph Cnty. Health Dep't, Dr. Robert M. Einterz, Dr. Mark D. Fox, & Penn-Harris-Madison Sch. Corp.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 3, 2021
    ...to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant's favor.’ " Id. (quoting Kitchell v. Franklin , 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1025 (Ind. 2013) ). We review a trial court's grant or denial of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion de novo. Id. "We will not affirm such a dismissa......
  • Serv. Steel Warehouse Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 3, 2021
    ...§ 32-28-3-1(a)(1)(A) (cleaned up). We may not engraft new words onto a statute or add restrictions where none exist. Kitchell v. Franklin , 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013).[12] Second, our Supreme Court has interpreted the erection requirement of Indiana's mechanic's lien statute to mean ......
  • Grdinich v. Plan Comm'n for the Town of Hebron
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 28, 2019
    ...App. 2015), trans. denied (2016). Such motions test the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. Kitchell v. Franklin , 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1025 (Ind. 2013). Dismissals under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) are "rarely appropriate." State v. Am. Family Voices, Inc. , 898 N.E.2d 293, 29......
  • Get Started for Free