Skip to main content
· 8/30/2000

Epperly v. Johnson

Citations

  • 734 N.E.2d 1066
  • 2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 1332
  • 2000 WL 1225468

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating general rule that “phrases with particularized legal meaning or which are ‘words of art’ require definition when used in jury instructions.”
  • constructive fraud action must be premised on “special relationship”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mattingly, Darden, Brook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.