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.
26 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Rhinehartgreen2 sentences2020“In evaluating the propriety of a given instruction, we consider 1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, 2) whether there is evidence in the record supporting the instruction, and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions.” Hill v. Rhinehart, 45 N.E.3d 427, 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. 2016Hill v. Rhmeharb, 45 N.E.3d 427, 439 (Ind.Ct. | 3 | 3 |
Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2009Elmer Buchta Trucking, 744 N.E.2d at 944 . 2002We consider the following to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to give a tendered instruction: “1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; 2) whether there is evidence in the record supporting the instruction; and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions.” Id. | 2 | 5 |
Goliday v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 195 (Ind.1997), we observed that one form of appellate ineffectiveness occurs when “appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised, is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite facts in the record supporting the claim.” (citing Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind.1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton v. State, 455 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind.1983)). 1997See, e.g., Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind. 1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton, 455 N.E.2d at 940 . | 2 | 2 |
Ashford v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 195 (Ind.1997), we observed that one form of appellate ineffectiveness occurs when “appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised, is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite facts in the record supporting the claim.” (citing Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind.1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton v. State, 455 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind.1983)). 1997See, e.g., Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind. 1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton, 455 N.E.2d at 940 . | 2 | 2 |
Peak v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2002“Moreover, one seeking a new trial on the basis of an improper jury instruction must show ‘a reasonable probability that substantial rights of the complaining party have been adversely affected.’” Id. (citing Peak v. Campbell, 578 N.E.2d 360, 362 (Ind.1991) (quoting Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 1130, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied )). 2001Peak v. Campbell, 578 N.E.2d 360, 361 (Ind.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Bieghler v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Sometimes, “appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised, is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite to facts in the record supporting the claim.” Id. 2007In Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 195 (Ind.1997), we observed that one form of appellate ineffectiveness occurs when “appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised, is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite facts in the record supporting the claim.” (citing Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind.1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton v. State, 455 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind.1983)). | 1 | 2 |
Burton v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 195 (Ind.1997), we observed that one form of appellate ineffectiveness occurs when “appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised, is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite facts in the record supporting the claim.” (citing Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind.1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton v. State, 455 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind.1983)). 1997See, e.g., Goliday v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ind. 1988); Ashford v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1298, 1302 (Ind.1984); Burton, 455 N.E.2d at 940 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bourasgreen1 sentence2025A trial court must give a proposed instruction “only if it covers an essential element of the case supported by evidence, correctly states the law material to the case and when no other instruction covers that area of the law.” State v. Bouras, 423 N.E.2d 741, 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801 (holding that a “mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor, must declare an armistice before he or she may claim self-defense”). [11] Baker is correct that there is some evidence in the record supporting her claim of self-defense; primarily, it is her own testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc.green1 sentence2002“Moreover, one seeking a new trial on the basis of an improper jury instruction must show ‘a reasonable probability that substantial rights of the complaining party have been adversely affected.’” Id. (citing Peak v. Campbell, 578 N.E.2d 360, 362 (Ind.1991) (quoting Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 1130, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blocher v. DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025When evaluating a jury instruction, this Court considers “1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, 2) whether there is evidence in the record supporting the instruction, and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions.” Blocher, 760 N.E.2d at 235 . 2019Id. | 8 | 2006–2025 |
Ryan Shelby v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2015Shelby, 986 N.E.2d at 360 . | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright
green
1 sentence2019Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright , 774 N.E.2d 891 , 893 (Ind. 2002). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hamilton v. Hamilton
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Weida v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.