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 2009–2015 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. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2009See State v. Montgomery, 901 N.E.2d 515, 528 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), aff'd on reh'g at 24 Mass.App.Ct. 920 , 507 N.E.2d 1057 ("In light of the State's pattern of failure in complying with Montgomery's discovery requests and the trial court's orders, we do not find clear error in the trial court's grant of Montgomery's motion for discharge."). 2009However, we also held that, "[in light of the State's pattern of failure in complying with Montgomery's discovery requests and the trial court's orders, we do not find clear error in the trial court's grant of Montgomery's motion for dis *1058 charge." Id. at 523 . | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Williams v. State, 508 N.E.2d 1264, 1268 (Ind. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Montgomery v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding trial counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel “fail[ed] . . . to subpoena two of the State’s expert witnesses or, in the alternative, request a continuance when the State did not call these experts and they were unavailable for Montgomery’s defense”) (emphasis added), trans. denied. [20] Defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to present all evidence in support of the defense position. | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d at 435 . | 1 | 1 |
Gifford v. Westwood Lodge Corp.green2 sentences2009See State v. Montgomery, 901 N.E.2d 515, 528 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), aff'd on reh'g at 24 Mass.App.Ct. 920 , 507 N.E.2d 1057 ("In light of the State's pattern of failure in complying with Montgomery's discovery requests and the trial court's orders, we do not find clear error in the trial court's grant of Montgomery's motion for discharge."). 2009See State v. Montgomery, 901 N.E.2d 515, 528 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), aff'd on reh'g at 24 Mass.App.Ct. 920 , 507 N.E.2d 1057 ("In light of the State's pattern of failure in complying with Montgomery's discovery requests and the trial court's orders, we do not find clear error in the trial court's grant of Montgomery's motion for discharge."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sturgeon v. State
green
1 sentence2009Sturgeon, 683 N.E.2d at 618 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.