bedrock principle in Indiana

16 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2024 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.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lefkowitz v. Turleygreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2019 2 sentences 2019I respectfully dissent. [36] I agree with the majority that it is a bedrock principle of our criminal justice system that the Fifth Amendment protects a person from being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal case and also protects a person from having the refusal to testify in a civil case used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings. 1091 Lefkowitz v. Turley , 414 U.S. 70 , 77, 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973) ; see slip op. at ¶¶ 14-15. 2019I respectfully dissent. [36] I agree with the majority that it is a bedrock principle of our criminal justice system that the Fifth Amendment protects a person from being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal case and also protects a person from having the refusal to testify in a civil case used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings. 1091 Lefkowitz v. Turley , 414 U.S. 70 , 77, 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973) ; see slip op. at ¶¶ 14-15.	2	2
Economy Oil Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen indctapp · 1974 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1979–1991 2 sentences 1991As this court stated in Eeonomy Oil v. Indiana Department of State (1975), 162 Ind.App. 658, 663 , 321 N.E.2d 215 , 218: "The bedrock rule of statutory construction is that a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court." In the instant case, IC 27-10-2-12(c) clearly sets up a late surrender fee schedule based upon the time of "compliance" with the terms of section (b). 1991As this court stated in Eeonomy Oil v. Indiana Department of State (1975), 162 Ind.App. 658, 663 , 321 N.E.2d 215 , 218: "The bedrock rule of statutory construction is that a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court." In the instant case, IC 27-10-2-12(c) clearly sets up a late surrender fee schedule based upon the time of "compliance" with the terms of section (b).	1	4
Perez v. United States Steel Corp.green ind · 1981 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024Parties “have a legal right to know the evidentiary bases upon which the [agency’s] ultimate finding rests.” Perez v. U.S. Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29, 32 (Ind. 1981) (citation omitted). “[A] disappointed party, whether he plans further proceedings or not, deserves to have the satisfaction of knowing why he lost his case.” Id. at 32 n. 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024Parties “have a legal right to know the evidentiary bases upon which the [agency’s] ultimate finding rests.” Perez v. U.S. Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29, 32 (Ind. 1981) (citation omitted). “[A] disappointed party, whether he plans further proceedings or not, deserves to have the satisfaction of knowing why he lost his case.” Id. at 32 n. 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	1	1
Brown v. Allengreen scotus · 1953 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020As Justice Jackson so famously proclaimed about the U.S. Supreme Court, “[w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring) (emphasis added).	1	1
Malloy v. Hogangreen scotus · 1964 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014V; see also Ind. Const, art. 1, § 14 (“No person, in any criminal prosecution, shall be compelled to testify against himself.”). 1 The Fifth Amendment, incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proce 2014V; see also Ind. Const, art. 1, § 14 (“No person, in any criminal prosecution, shall be compelled to testify against himself.”). 1 The Fifth Amendment, incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proce	1	1
Joseph D. Hardiman and Jaketa L. Patterson, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Britney R. Meux v. Jason R. Cozmanoffgreen ind · 2014 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014Specifically, Mother invoked her rights when asked whether she had been in a long-term sexual relationship with Father and whether Father had ever raped, attempted to rape, or otherwise physically harmed her. 2 For the same reason, we also reject Mother’s argument that the trial court erred by requiring the parties to communicate solely by text message or e-mail. 10 Our Supreme Court recently discussed the impact of a witness’s invocation of his or her privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings in Hardiman v. Cozmanoff, 4 N.E.3d 1148, 1152 (Ind. 2014): It is a bedrock principle	1	1
Texas v. Johnsongreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013KIRSCH, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 1 “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).	1	1
McKnight v. Stategreen ind · 1995 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind. 2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944). 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944).	1	1
Indiana State Highway Commission v. Morrisgreen ind · 1988 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind. 2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944). 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944).	1	1
Loftus v. Stategreen ind · 1944 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944). 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944).	1	1
McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc.green ind · 1995 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind. 2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944). 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944).	1	1
Kendall v. Stategreen indctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[WJhile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006). 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[W]hile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006).	1	1
Dunson v. Dunsongreen ind · 2002 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See, e.g., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind. 2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944). 2009See, eg., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1124-25 (Ind.2002); McKnight v. State, 658 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind.1995); McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc., 659 N.E.2d 1016, 1018 (Ind.1995); Ind. State Highway Conm'n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.1988); Loftus v. State, 222 Ind. 139, 143-44 , 52 N.E.2d 488, 490 (1944).	1	1
Benton v. Marylandgreen scotus · 1969 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532 , 382 N.E.2d 893 (1978). 1999See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532 , 382 N.E.2d 893 (1978).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Guadalupe Puente v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana, PNC Bank, Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., and Meridian Title Corp. green indctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2015The freedom to contract is “a bedrock principle of Indiana law,” id. at 218 , and “the freedom of the parties to exclude risks from an insurance contract is- well established,” United Farm Bureau Mut. 2015The freedom to contract is “a bedrock principle of Indiana law,” id. at 218 , and “the freedom of the parties to exclude risks from an insurance contract is well established,” United Farm Bureau Mut.	1	2015–2015
Hayes v. State green indctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[WJhile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006). 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[W]hile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006).	1	2009–2009
Kendall v. State green ind · 2006 2 sentences 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[WJhile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006). 2009"Knock and talk might more aptly be named knock and enter, because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." Id. "[W]hile the knock and talk procedure is not necessarily unlawful, it is a dangerous short-cut around the bedrock requirement that police have probable cause to enter a home." Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (Najam, J., dissenting), aff'd on other grounds in part and summarily aff'd in part by 849 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind.2006).	1	2009–2009
Elmore v. State green ind · 1978 2 sentences 1999See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532 , 382 N.E.2d 893 (1978). 1999See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969); Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532 , 382 N.E.2d 893 (1978).	1	1999–1999
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Osco Drug, Inc. green indctapp · 1982 1 sentence 1992"The bedrock rule of statutory construction is that a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court." Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. Osco Drug, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 823, 883 .	1	1992–1992
Morgan County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. green ind · 1973 2 sentences 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 . 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 .	1	1974–1974
KNOX REMC v. Pub. Serv. Co. green indctapp · 1966 2 sentences 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 . 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 .	1	1974–1974
Meade Electric Co., Etc. v. Hagberg Etc. green indctapp · 1959 2 sentences 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 . 1974Morgan County R.E.M.C. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1973), 261 Ind. 323 , 302 N.E.2d 776 ; Knox County R.E.M.C. v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1966), 139 Ind. App. 547 , 213 N.E.2d 714 ; Meade Electric Co. v. Hogberg (1959), 129 Ind. App. 631 , 159 N.E.2d 408 .	1	1974–1974

Where else courts name it

CA 108 (1964–2026) TX 71 (1991–2026) MI 57 (2002–2026) NM 56 (1991–2025) PA 36 (1990–2026) NY 35 (1987–2026) NJ 34 (1992–2025) MD 33 (1993–2025) CT 31 (1996–2024) OH 30 (1999–2024) WA 25 (1979–2021) MS 20 (1998–2022) FL 19 (1993–2024) IA 17 (2007–2026) IL 17 (1995–2026) MA 17 (2001–2026) GA 17 (1997–2026) IN 16 (1974–2024) VA 16 (2001–2026) DC 15 (1981–2025) WI 14 (1992–2026) CO 13 (1992–2026) MO 12 (1999–2024) DE 11 (1991–2026) OR 11 (2002–2023) VT 10 (1992–2026) RI 9 (1998–2017) KY 9 (2016–2026) LA 8 (1982–2022) MN 8 (1991–2025) NC 7 (1993–2025) MT 7 (2000–2025) TN 7 (1996–2025) HI 7 (2003–2020) AZ 7 (2003–2021) KS 6 (2004–2024) AL 6 (1997–2015) WV 6 (1984–2024) ME 6 (2002–2020) OK 5 (2008–2024) ID 4 (1985–2018) NH 3 (1999–2020) VI 3 (2023–2025) NE 3 (1989–2024) SC 3 (1976–2025) NV 2 (2013–2020) AK 2 (2021–2025) UT 2 (2009–2019) ND 2 (2024–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check