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.
19 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Klopfenstein v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Thurman v. State, 793 N.E.2d 318, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Klopfenstein v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)). 2016Thurman v. State, 793 N.E.2d 318, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Klopfenstein v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)). | 2 | 2 |
Thurman v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Thurman v. State, 793 N.E.2d 318, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Klopfenstein v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)). 2016Thurman v. State, 793 N.E.2d 318, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Klopfenstein v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)). | 2 | 2 |
Joshua McCaine Pillow v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). [26] To prove that Coker carried a handgun without a license in violation of Indiana Code Section 35-47-2-1 (West 2015), the State had to provide evidence that a handgun was found in the vehicle and that Coker had control of either the weapon or of the vehicle with knowledge of the weapon’s presence in the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1506-CR-744| February 23, 2016 Page 16 of 19 vehicle. 2016Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). [26] To prove that Coker carried a handgun without a license in violation of Indiana Code Section 35-47-2-1 (West 2015), the State had to provide evidence that a handgun was found in the vehicle and that Coker had control of either the weapon or of the vehicle with knowledge of the weapon’s presence in the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1506-CR-744| February 23, 2016 Page 16 of 19 vehicle. | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2015July 1, 2014), that “[p]roof that [the defendant] had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on [the .defendant] to prove he possessed a valid license,” and further that Ind.Code § 35-47-2-24 expressly places the burden on the defendant to prove he or she has a license or was exempt from- the statute. 716 N.E.2d at 411 (quoting Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Harper v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See also Harper v. State, 922 N.E.2d 75, 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that a police officer’s request that an automobile passenger not leave the scene of the traffic stop did 3 Franklin testified that, after VanCamp returned to his cruiser to perform the license inquiry and warrant check, Wright attempted to exit Franklin’s car and one of the officers ordered him to “get back in.” Tr. p. 73. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drubertgreen1 sentence2011Yet we have previously held that the driver’s license requirement does not apply to "motorized bicycles” because of an independent statute, Indiana Code section 9-21-11-12, which provides conditions for operating a "motorized bicycle.” See State v. Drubert, 686 N.E.2d 918, 919 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Mitchell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 112, 116 (Ind.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In Washington , we concluded that “[p]roof that [the defendant] had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on [the defendant] to prove he possessed a valid license.” Id.; accord Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787 (Ind.1998); Taylor v. State, 578 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ind.1991); Tonge v. State, 575 N.E.2d 269, 271 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In Washington , we concluded that “[p]roof that [the defendant] had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on [the defendant] to prove he possessed a valid license.” Id.; accord Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787 (Ind.1998); Taylor v. State, 578 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ind.1991); Tonge v. State, 575 N.E.2d 269, 271 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Tonge v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In Washington , we concluded that “[p]roof that [the defendant] had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on [the defendant] to prove he possessed a valid license.” Id.; accord Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787 (Ind.1998); Taylor v. State, 578 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ind.1991); Tonge v. State, 575 N.E.2d 269, 271 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2019I.C. § 35-47-2-24 ("The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt ... or that he has a license as required under this chapter."); Harris v. State , 716 N.E.2d 406 , 411-412 (Ind. 1999). 2015July 1, 2014), that “[p]roof that [the defendant] had a license is an exception to the offense, and the burden is on [the .defendant] to prove he possessed a valid license,” and further that Ind.Code § 35-47-2-24 expressly places the burden on the defendant to prove he or she has a license or was exempt from- the statute. 716 N.E.2d at 411 (quoting Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind.1987)). | 5 | 2000–2019 |
Lewis v. State
green
2 sentences1987Lewis v. State (1985), Ind. App., 484 N.E.2d 77, 80 . 1987Lewis v. State (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 77, 80 . | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Elliott v. State
green
2 sentences2015Also, this court has specifically addressed the issue in Elliott v. State, 435 N.E.2d 302 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), in which we explained that “it is not unconstitutional for a statute to impose the burden of proof upon a defendant for proof of an issue where the issue is not an element of the crime” that “proof of the presence of a license to carry a handgun is an exemption or exception to, and not an element of, the crime of carrying a handgun without a license,” and that the statutory scheme is constitutional. 435 N.E.2d at 304-305 . 2015Also, this court has specifically addressed the issue in Elliott v. State, 435 N.E.2d 302 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), in which we explained that “it is not unconstitutional for a statute to impose the burden of proof upon a defendant for proof of an issue where the issue is not an element of the crime” that “proof of the presence of a license to carry a handgun is an exemption or exception to, and not an element of, the crime of carrying a handgun without a license,” and that the statutory scheme is constitutional. 435 N.E.2d at 304-305 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Frink v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fields v. State
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 31 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt
green
2 sentences1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla.1984), 590 F.Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). 1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla. 1984), 590 F. Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Organized Fishermen Of Florida v. Hodel
green
2 sentences1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla.1984), 590 F.Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). 1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla. 1984), 590 F. Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Friedman
green
2 sentences1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla.1984), 590 F.Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). 1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla. 1984), 590 F. Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Probe v. California State Teachers' Retirement System
green
2 sentences1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla.1984), 590 F.Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). 1987Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt (S.D.Fla. 1984), 590 F. Supp. 805, 815 , affirmed sub nom., Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel (11th Cir.1985), 775 F.2d 1544 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Matthews v. State
green
2 sentences1961Section 10-4736, supra, of the Firearms Act was recently held not to be in violation of Article 1, §32, supra, in Matthews v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 677, 686 , 148 N. E. 2d 334 , and since the reasons for so holding are stated in the opinion in that case, we see no reason to repeat them here. 1961Section 10-4736, supra, of the Firearms Act was recently held not to be in violation of Article 1, §32, supra, in Matthews v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 677, 686 , 148 N. E. 2d 334 , and since the reasons for so holding are stated in the opinion in that case, we see no reason to repeat them here. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
State v. Pitzer
green
1 sentence1908State v. Pitzer (1880), 23 Kan. 250 ; State v. Sommers (1830), 3 Vt. 156 ; 22 Cyc., 347. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
State v. Sommers
neutral
1 sentence1908State v. Pitzer (1880), 23 Kan. 250 ; State v. Sommers (1830), 3 Vt. 156 ; 22 Cyc., 347. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Wiley v. Owens
neutral
1 sentence1904In Wiley v. Owens (1872), 39 Ind. 429 , it appears that the city of Eranlclin had passed an ordinance fixing the license fee for retailing intoxicating liquors in said city at $500 per annum. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.