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 1 courts 2001–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aynesgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Estep, 753 N.E.2d 22 , 24 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that when the State initiates an appeal pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-4-2(5), it “represents” that the ultimate effect of the order granting a motion to suppress is to preclude further prosecution); State v. Aynes, 715 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that the State’s initiation of an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress “constitutes a ‘judicial admission’ that prosecution cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence”), reh’g denied. 2001See State v. Aynes, 715 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (State's initiation of appeal under Ind.Code § 35-38-4-2(5) constitutes judicial admission that prosecution cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1203 (Ind.2008). 2011State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1203 (Ind.2008). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Estepgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Estep, 753 N.E.2d 22 , 24 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that when the State initiates an appeal pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-4-2(5), it “represents” that the ultimate effect of the order granting a motion to suppress is to preclude further prosecution); State v. Aynes, 715 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that the State’s initiation of an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress “constitutes a ‘judicial admission’ that prosecution cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence”), reh’g denied. 2016See State v. Estep, 753 N.E.2d 22 , 24 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that when the State initiates an appeal pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-4-2(5), it “represents” that the ultimate effect of the order granting a motion to suppress is to preclude further prosecution); State v. Aynes, 715 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that the State’s initiation of an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress “constitutes a ‘judicial admission’ that prosecution cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence”), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindsaygreen1 sentence2011State v. Lindsay, 862 N.E.2d 314, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watt v. State
green
1 sentence2019Watt v. State , 412 N.E.2d 90 , 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Morris
green
1 sentence2002State v. Morris, 732 N.E.2d 224 , 226 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). 5 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.