17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Canaan v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind. 2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). 2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind.2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). | 3 | 4 |
Logan v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind. 2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). 2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind.2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). | 3 | 3 |
Primus v. Stategreen2 sentences2015If actual authority cannot be shown, one must determine whether the consenting party had apparent authority to consent to the search. [28]' “Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would" cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Primus v. State, 813 N.E.2d 370, 374-75 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 181 , 110 S.Ct, 2793 ; Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 144 (Ind.1999)). 2013“Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the 9 time would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Primus, 813 N.E.2d at 374-375 . | 2 | 5 |
Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences2013BMH correctly notes the apparent authority doctrine is based on manifestations by the principal, not the agent, see id. at 148 (the manifestation must be made by the principal to a third party), and argues Helms is relying on manifestations by the Clinic. 2013BMH correctly notes the apparent authority doctrine is based on manifestations by the principal, not the agent, see id. at 148 (the manifesta tion must be made by the principal to a third party), and argues Helms is relying on manifestations by the Clinic. | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2015The burden is on the State to show that 2 Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would “‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188-89 (1990) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 21- 22 (1968)). 2015If actual authority cannot be shown, one must determine whether the consenting party had apparent authority to consent to the search. [28]' “Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would" cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Primus v. State, 813 N.E.2d 370, 374-75 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 181 , 110 S.Ct, 2793 ; Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 144 (Ind.1999)). | 1 | 4 |
Trowbridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2015If actual authority cannot be shown, one must determine whether the consenting party had apparent authority to consent to the search. [28]' “Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would" cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Primus v. State, 813 N.E.2d 370, 374-75 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 181 , 110 S.Ct, 2793 ; Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 144 (Ind.1999)). 2004Id.; Trowbridge, 717 N.E.2d at 144 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2015The burden is on the State to show that 2 Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would “‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188-89 (1990) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 21- 22 (1968)). 2012Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Id. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). | 4 | 2001–2015 |
Call v. United States
green
2 sentences2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind. 2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). 2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind.2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). | 4 | 1999–2012 |
Canaan v. Indiana
green
2 sentences2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind. 2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). 2012See also Logan v. State, 729 N.E.2d 125, 130 (Ind.2000); Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 231-32 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906 , 118 S.Ct. 2064 , 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). | 3 | 2001–2012 |
Krise v. State
green
2 sentences2005Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises. 6 Id. 2005Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is lawful if the facts available to the officer at the time would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises. [6] Id. *247 Polk argues that the facts of this case are similar to those of Friedel and Krise . | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Helms v. Rudicel
green
1 sentence2020Helms, 986 N.E.2d at 310 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1989In support of this proposition, Hiland and Pemberton cite Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial Hospital (1988), 144 Wis.2d 188 , 423 N.W.2d 848 . 1989Where a patient seeks care from a physician who then uses the hospital facilities, the hospital would not be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority. 423 N.W.2d at 856 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.