147 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1860–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles Lindgren v. Michael P. Lanegreen2 sentences2017Rees’ testimony at trial, Lee has waived our review of that issue. [13] Waiver notwithstanding, we find no Doyle violation.2 The rule articulated in Doyle is not “‘a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’” Willsey v. State, 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991)). 2013Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’ 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991)). | 7 | 7 |
Willsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Rees’ testimony at trial, Lee has waived our review of that issue. [13] Waiver notwithstanding, we find no Doyle violation.2 The rule articulated in Doyle is not “‘a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’” Willsey v. State, 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991)). 2013Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’ 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991)). | 5 | 6 |
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences2026To establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement when a group is excluded from the jury, a defendant must show “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community,” “(2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community,” and “(3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). 1998To establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, a defendant must show: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); see also Smith, 658 N.E.2d at 916 . | 3 | 17 |
Wright v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2016Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 2016Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). | 3 | 3 |
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Butchergreen2 sentences2012Id. at 16, 20. 2012Id. at 16, 20 . | 2 | 2 |
Olive v. Olivegreen2 sentences2000Olive v. Olive, 650 N.E.2d 766, 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). 1997Olive v. Olive, 650 N.E.2d 766, 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Raymond C. Tisdale v. Christine M. (Tisdale) Bolickgreen2 sentences2017Tisdale v. Bolick, 978 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 1. 2015Tisdale v. Bolick, 978 N.E.2d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). [11] We begin by noting that the parties appeared before the court on Mother’s motion for contempt, which motion she filed in the paternity action. | 1 | 3 |
Willie Jenkins v. Mary Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2017Jenkins v. Jenkins, 17 N.E.3d 350, 351-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations omitted). *831 Dumka argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for garnishment based on an exemption that Lori failed to assert. 2015Id. at 352 . [8] Chocklett moved for a directed verdict and, because this was a bench trial, it is properly reviewed as an Indiana Trial Rule 41(B) motion for involuntary dismissal. | 1 | 2 |
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See id. 2004More *763 importantly, we were reviewing the claim of error under a prima facie error standard because the State did not challenge the issue upon appeal.> Id. | 1 | 2 |
National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ewardgreen2 sentences1993National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Eward (1987), Ind.App., 517 N.E.2d 95, 103, n. 8 . 1991Id. | 1 | 2 |
Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fanggreen1 sentence2020Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolinigreen1 sentence2020“The standard of appellate review of trial court rulings on motions to correct error is abuse of discretion.” Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048, 1055 (Ind. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Windgate Properties, LLC v. Chris Sandersgreen1 sentence2019Windgate Properties, LLC v. Sanders, 93 N.E.3d 809, 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
| Mateyko v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murfitt v. Murfittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Slaton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Paternity of BNCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Moriaritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Justin D. Maurer v. Crystal Cobb-Maurergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anthony King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons and Charles Gilkeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| National Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Gingrichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goins v. Riddlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Popovich v. Danielsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Strowmatt v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ewing v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Fieldergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nicholas Knapp v. Northwestern University, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, and Rick Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. v. Kinseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lightman v. Zenith Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brant v. Hestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Washington County Memorial Hospital v. Hattabaughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vitek v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Antitrust Grand Jurygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roberts v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rzeszutek v. Beck
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2001Id. | 9 | 1996–2005 |
Mikel v. Johnston
neutral
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. 3 . | 5 | 2012–2013 |
Elrod v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2017Id. [16] We also observe that Sellers have not filed an appellate appendix. 2014Id. | 4 | 2011–2017 |
Brower Corp. v. Brattain
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2004Brower Corp., 792 N.E.2d at 77 . | 4 | 2004–2009 |
Geico Insurance Company, as subrogee of Ralph Heitkamp v. Dianna Graham
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2015Id. | 3 | 2015–2017 |
Village of College Corner v. Town of West College Corner
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 3 | 2003–2003 |
Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017“The prima facie error rule protects this court and relieves it from the burden of controverting arguments advanced for reversal, a duty which properly remains with counsel for the appellee.” Id. [9] Proceedings supplemental to execution are enforced by verified motion alleging that “the plaintiff owns the described judgment against the defendant” and that the “plaintiff has no cause to believe that levy of execution against the defendant will satisfy the judgment[.]” Ind. Trial Rule 69(E); see also Ind. Code §§ 34-55-8-1 through -9. 2005Id. " The Tenant lost, in part, below. | 2 | 2005–2017 |
McBride v. Cox
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2014 |
Lindgren v. McGinnis
green
2 sentences2012Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.’” Willsey v. State, 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 831 ). 2001Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant's right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor." 698 N.E.2d 784, 798 (Ind.1998) (quoting Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir.), cert. demied, 502 U.S. 831 , 112 S.Ct. 105 , 116 L.Ed.2d 74 (1991)), reh'g demied. | 2 | 2001–2012 |
Gardner v. State
green
2 sentences2005As this court said in Gardner v. State, 591 N.E.2d 592 (Ind.Ct.App.1992): The prima facie standard thus prevents two evils which would otherwise undermine the judicial process. 1999As this court said in Gardner v. State, 591 N.E.2d 592 (Ind.Ct.App.1992): The prima facie standard thus prevents two evils which would otherwise undermine the judicial process. | 2 | 1999–2005 |
Town and Country Ford, Inc. v. Busch
green
2 sentences2005"The prima facie error rule protects this court and relieves it from the burden of controverting arguments advanced for reversal, a duty which properly remains with counsel for the appellee." Id. 2005"The prima facie error rule protects this court and relieves it from the burden of controverting arguments advanced for reversal, a duty which properly remains with counsel for the appellee." Id. | 2 | 1999–2005 |
Kostuck v. VINCENT D.
green
2 sentences2001Id. 2001Id. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Marriage of Brown
green
2 sentences1997Id. 1993In re Marriage of Brown (1992), Ind.App., 597 N.E.2d 1297 . | 2 | 1993–1997 |
Estate of Stanley v. Pence
green
2 sentences1911Masters v. Jones (1902), 158 Ind. 647 ; Stanley’s Estate v. Pence (1903), 160 Ind. 636 ; Woods v. Matlock (1898), 19 Ind. App. 364 ; Leimgruber v. Leimgruber (1909), 172 Ind. 370 . 1908Stanley’s Estate v. Pence (1903), 160 Ind. 636 ; Miller v. Eldridge (1891), 126 Ind. 461 ; Stricker v. Barnes (1890), 122 Ind. 348 . 2. | 2 | 1908–1911 |
State Farm Insurance v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2025Freeman, 847 N.E.2d at 1048 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Billings v. Odle
green
1 sentence2018Id. [16] Here, the trial court modified physical custody from equal parenting time of alternating weeks (181 to 183 nights per year per parent) to Mother having the Children for ten to eleven out of every fourteen nights, with holidays divided according to the Parenting Time Guidelines. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Trice v. State
green
2 sentences2018There is no dispute that the jury was aware of Parker’s request for an attorney at some point during the investigative process, but “Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant’s right to counsel.” Id. at 1183 . 2018Rather, Doyle “guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor.” Id. (quoting Willsey v. State, 698 N.E.2d 784, 793 (Ind. 1998)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Clark v. Clark green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Augustine green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Jose Castillo-Aguilar v. State of Indiana green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Tri-Professional Realty, Inc. v. Hillenburg green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Andrews v. Ivie green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Konigsberg green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Berghuis v. Smith green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Griffin v. Griffin green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In Re Marriage of Ransom green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Dominiack Mechanical, Inc. v. Dunbar green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Blakely v. Washington green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Combs v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Citizens National Bank of Whitley County v. Stasell green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Ragsdale v. Robinson green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Hoff v. Hoffman green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Laux v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Gibson v. Hand green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Miller v. Smith green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Boalbey v. Norris neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Allstate Insurance Co. v. Bradtmueller green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| United States v. Park green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Matter of Dougherty green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Meeks v. O'Leary green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.