Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fajardo v. Statered1 sentence2008Fields argues the amendment was one of substance and, pursuant to Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind.2007), was permissible only up to thirty days before the omnibus date. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The Huntingon National Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp
green
1 sentence2019Fields argues that while "mired in discovery involving Safway's effort to set aside the default judgment, witnesses' recollections and physical evidence grew older, and [Fields'] ability to uncover the facts necessary to prove his allegations against Safway grew more remote." (Br. of Appellant at 23.) Fields' argument that he was "mired in discovery[,]" ( id. ), such that he is now prejudiced is without merit. *812 [32] On June 9, 2017, Fields filed the "Motion to Conduct Discovery Pursuant to Indiana Trail [sic] Rule 60(D)." (App. Vol. II at 53.) The trial court granted Fields' motion. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Oddi-Smith
green
2 sentences2017The State also alleged that Fields was a habitual vehicular substance offender. [4] In December 2016, Fields filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him because Officer Reichard "had not been lawfully sworn in to act with the authority of the Warsaw Police Department at the time of the stop and detention ... on September 12, 201[5]." Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 38; see Ind. Code § 5-4-1-1 (a) ("[E]very officer and every deputy, before entering on the officer's or deputy's official duties, shall take an oath ...."); State v. Oddi-Smith , 878 N.E.2d 1245 , 1247-48 (Ind. 2008) (concluding 2017May, J., and Altice, J., concur. 1 In that case, our Supreme Court ultimately found that the officer was properly sworn, but it noted that there "might well be other grounds on which the arrest of Oddi-Smith was valid, like the 'de facto officer' doctrine." Oddi-Smith , 878 N.E.2d at 1249 . 2 Fields argues that he is entitled to relief under Ryder . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fields v. State
green
2 sentences1999In applying the “first step” of its double jeopardy analysis, the Fields court held the following: “We hold that for double jeopardy purposes, the elements of the offense of possession of a handgun include both the possession of a handgun and the lack of a valid license.” Fields v. State, 676 N.E.2d at 30 . 1999In applying the “first step” of its double jeopardy analysis, the Fields court held the following: “We hold that for double jeopardy purposes, the elements of the offense of possession of a handgun include both the possession of a handgun and the lack of a valid license.” Fields v. State, 676 N.E.2d at 30 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Guevara v. K-Mart Corp.
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Judith Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue Inc
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Pilotta (Louis) v. Schweiker (Richard)
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Grzyb v. Evans
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Mein v. Masonite Corporation
green
2 sentences1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. 1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gutierrez v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Pierce v. New Process Co.
green
1 sentence1989Wolk v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. (3rd Cir.1984), 728 F.2d 221 ; Guevara v. K-Mart Corp. (S.D.W.Va.1986), 629 F.Supp. 1189 ; Guiterrez v. City of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1985), 605 F.Supp. 973 ; Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (N.D.Ca.1985), 609 F.Supp. 467 ; Pierce v. New Process Co. (W.D.Penn.1984), 580 F.Supp. 1543 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1984), 749 F.2d 27 ; Mein v. Masonite (1985), 109 Ill.2d 1 , 92 Ill.Dec. 501 , 485 N.E.2d 312 ; Grzyb v. Evans (1985), Ky., 700 S.W.2d 399 ; Strauss v. A.L. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.