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 2 courts 1918–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. O'Dellgreen2 sentences2005See Day v. State, 251 Ind. 399, 402 , 241 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1968) (holding that when an offense is created by statute and another statute or another section of the statute makes exceptions thereto, it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exceptions); State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 88 , 118 N.E. 529, 531 (1918) (holding that a compulsory attendance statute recognizes exceptions to its operation and "the burden rests on the defendant to avail himself to the exception, if any, which is applicable to his case, since proof thereof is a matter of affirmative defense"). 2005See Day v. State, 251 Ind. 399, 402 , 241 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1968) (holding that when an offense is created by statute and another statute or another section of the statute makes exceptions thereto, it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exceptions); State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 88 , 118 N.E. 529, 531 (1918) (holding that a compulsory attendance statute recognizes exceptions to its operation and "the burden rests on the defendant to avail himself to the exception, if any, which is applicable to his case, since proof thereof is a matter of affirmative defense"). | 2 | 3 |
Day v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Day v. State, 251 Ind. 399, 402 , 241 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1968) (holding that when an offense is created by statute and another statute or another section of the statute makes exceptions thereto, it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exceptions); State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 88 , 118 N.E. 529, 531 (1918) (holding that a compulsory attendance statute recognizes exceptions to its operation and "the burden rests on the defendant to avail himself to the exception, if any, which is applicable to his case, since proof thereof is a matter of affirmative defense"). 2005See Day v. State, 251 Ind. 399, 402 , 241 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1968) (holding that when an offense is created by statute and another statute or another section of the statute makes exceptions thereto, it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exceptions); State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 88 , 118 N.E. 529, 531 (1918) (holding that a compulsory attendance statute recognizes exceptions to its operation and "the burden rests on the defendant to avail himself to the exception, if any, which is applicable to his case, since proof thereof is a matter of affirmative defense"). | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Ind.Code § 85-47-2-24; Washington. v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind.1987). 2002See Ind.Code § 35-47-2-24; Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McCaffrey
green
1 sentence1918Cooper v. State (1874), 47 Ind. 61, 63 ; State v. McCaffrey (1896), 69 Vt. 85, 90 , 37 Atl. 234 ; 12 Cyc 380. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Cooper v. State
neutral
1 sentence1918Cooper v. State (1874), 47 Ind. 61, 63 ; State v. McCaffrey (1896), 69 Vt. 85, 90 , 37 Atl. 234 ; 12 Cyc 380. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.