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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1883–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Planned Parenthood I, 211 N.E.3d at 970. 2024Id. at 976. | 2 | 2 |
Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzigreen2 sentences2025Under our Supreme Court’s precedents, a constitutional right “is impermissibly alienated when the State materially burdens one of the core values which it embodies.” Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973, 983 (Ind. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). 2019See, e.g., Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973, 983-84 (Ind. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whittington v. State
green
1 sentence2011Whittington, 669 N.E.2d at 1370 . [8] The majority in Clinic for Women left open the issue of whether the right to have an abortion was a core constitutional value under Article 1, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2003I, § 1, and have rejected these claims. 5 Most notably, in State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 , 728 N.E.2d 342 (2000), the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether a reporting statute requiring the offender to provide a current home address, the name and address of the offender’s employer, a photograph, and any other information required by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violated privacy rights under § 1, Art. 2003I, § 1, and have rejected these claims. 5 Most notably, in State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 , 728 N.E.2d 342 (2000), the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether a reporting statute requiring the offender to provide a current home address, the name and address of the offender’s employer, a photograph, and any other information required by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violated privacy rights under § 1, Art. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Weisenberger v. State
green
2 sentences1957The appellant cites Weisenberger v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 424 , 175 N. E. 238 , which case upholds “The constitutional personal liberty clause or the right to pursue proper vocations is regarded as an unalienable right and privilege, not to be restricted except for good cause.” In discussing the decision in the Weisenberger case the appellant, in his own brief at page 112, states as follows: “This decision declared that the right to work at an occupation or trade, where we can find a job, is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Constitution. 1957The appellant cites Weisenberger v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 424 , 175 N. E. 238 , which case upholds “The constitutional personal liberty clause or the right to pursue proper vocations is regarded as an unalienable right and privilege, not to be restricted except for good cause.” In discussing the decision in the Weisenberger case the appellant, in his own brief at page 112, states as follows: “This decision declared that the right to work at an occupation or trade, where we can find a job, is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Constitution. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Gibbs v. Blanchard
neutral
1 sentence1883There was evidence, deducible from practically admitted facts, tending to sustain this special finding of the jury, which was in harmony with, and in support of, the general verdict, and which made this case a parallel one in most material respects with the case of Gibbs v. Blanchard, supra. The appellant has, consequently, no reason to complain of the instructions given as above by the circuit court upon its own motion. | 1 | 1883–1883 |
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.