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 2004–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d at 435 (“We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.”). | 1 | 1 |
Eddie Trail and Katrinka Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indianagreen1 sentence2017Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130, 134 (Ind. 2006)) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1706-OV-1377 | December 21, 2017 Page 6 of 11 [11] Here, the trial court dismissed Roberts’ claim without a detailed written opinion as to its reasons for dismissal. | 1 | 1 |
Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., LPgreen2 sentences2005Roberts cites Bagley v. Insight Communcations, Co., 658 N.E.2d 584, 587-88 (Ind.1995), for the proposition that an employee of an independent contractor may recover from the principal for negligence of the contractor or a fellow employee of the contractor. 2005Roberts cites Bagley v. Insight Communications, Co., 658 N.E.2d 584, 587-88 (Ind.1995), for the proposition that an employee of an independent contractor may recover from the principal for negligence of the contractor or a fellow employee of the contractor. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Saget, Also Known as Heshgreen2 sentences2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion 2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion 2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hendricksgreen2 sentences2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion 2005Compare United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.2005) ("unless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls."); United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2005) ("With respect to nontestimonial statements, however, Craw- ' ford leaves in place the Roberts approach to determining admissibility."), with United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004) ("[Wlhile the continued viability of Roberts with respect to nontestimonial statements is somewhat in doubt, we will assume for purposes of this opinion | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2004The Crawford court stated toward the end of the opinion: "Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law-as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause serutiny altogether." -- U.S. at --, 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.