Young v. Young

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Indiana follows a modified comparative 7 fault system and stating that “one who drives while intoxicated is generally more at 8 fault than one who permits another to drive while intoxicated”
• disagreeing with the rationale in Casebolt and 10 stating, “We do not believe that allowing drunk drivers to recover from those who 11 allow them to drive drunk significantly furthers the already existing public policy 12 against drunk driving.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Young v. Young
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2008-08-19· cited 64×
• Parma v. Demsey
  Ohio Court of Appeals· 2011-12-22· cited 2×
• Crofford v. Adachi.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2022-02-28· cited 2×
• Armenta v. A.S. Horner, Inc.
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2015-06-10
• Haley SoderVick v. Parkview Health System, Inc.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2020-05-15

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Marriage of Kondamuri v. Kondamuri
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-08-17· cited 67×
• Hartley v. Hartley
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2007-03-05· cited 66×
• Marriage of Glover v. Torrence
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2000-02-07· cited 65×
• Clark v. Madden
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2000-03-10· cited 50×
• Marriage of Scoleri v. Scoleri
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2002-04-26· cited 48×
• Williamson v. Williamson
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-04-05· cited 34×
• Glass v. Oeder
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1999-09-23· cited 27×
• Purcell v. Southern Hills Investments, LLC
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-05-22· cited 25×
• Miller v. Sugden
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-06-26· cited 13×
• Five Star Concrete, L.L.C. v. Klink, Inc.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1998-03-30· cited 4×
• State v. Universal Outdoor, Inc.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2007-04-18· cited 2×