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.
16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1881–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Konopski v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1982See, e.g., Konopski v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (1978) 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 62 , 391 A.2d 1137 , where the Pennsylvania court held before an employee could obtain benefits after leaving for health reasons he must (1) inform the employer of the health problem, (2) request a transfer to work which was suitable in light of his health problem, and (3) offer competent testimony that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination.” Raham v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec., (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 606, 607 . 1982See, e.g., Konopski v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (1978) 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 62 , 391 A.2d 1137 , where the Pennsylvania court held before an employee could obtain benefits after leaving for health reasons he must (1) inform the employer of the health problem, (2) request a transfer to work which was suitable in light of his health problem, and (3) offer competent testimony that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination.” Raham v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec., (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 606, 607 . | 2 | 2 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2024See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525 . 2024See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525 . | 1 | 1 |
Chris D. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)green1 sentence2019Abd alleges that the trial court erred when it did not include a reasonable theory of innocence instruction as mandated by our Supreme Court in Hampton v. State , 961 N.E.2d 480 , 486 (Ind. 2012) ; see also Hawkins v. State , 100 N.E.3d 313 , 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). [24] In Hampton , our Supreme Court discussed at length why trial courts must include this jury instruction in particular circumstances: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of such an instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error | 1 | 1 |
Poynter v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122, 1129 (Ind.2001) (new trial ordered where judge did not advise defendant about dangers of self-representation). | 1 | 1 |
Raham v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Divisiongreen1 sentence1982See, e.g., Konopski v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (1978) 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 62 , 391 A.2d 1137 , where the Pennsylvania court held before an employee could obtain benefits after leaving for health reasons he must (1) inform the employer of the health problem, (2) request a transfer to work which was suitable in light of his health problem, and (3) offer competent testimony that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination.” Raham v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec., (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 606, 607 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hampton v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 484 . 2019Abd alleges that the trial court erred when it did not include a reasonable theory of innocence instruction as mandated by our Supreme Court in Hampton v. State , 961 N.E.2d 480 , 486 (Ind. 2012) ; see also Hawkins v. State , 100 N.E.3d 313 , 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). [24] In Hampton , our Supreme Court discussed at length why trial courts must include this jury instruction in particular circumstances: [B]ecause Indiana jurisprudence recognizes the importance of such an instruction in certain cases involving circumstantial evidence but our case law reveals a reluctance to find reversible error | 2 | 2019–2019 |
White v. White
green
2 sentences1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . 1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . | 2 | 1964–1965 |
Brown v. Beachler
neutral
2 sentences1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . 1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . | 2 | 1964–1965 |
Adams v. Purtlebaugh
green
2 sentences1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . 1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . | 2 | 1964–1965 |
Morrison v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . 1965Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269 , 102 N. E. 2d 499 ; Morrison v. Morrison (1960), 130 Ind. App. 270 , 164 N. E. 2d 113 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 ; White v. White (1938), 214 Ind. 405 , 15 N. E. 2d 86 . | 2 | 1964–1965 |
Baker & Daniels, LLP v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., Inc.
green
1 sentence2024In this regard, we noted our Supreme Court’s emphasis on the importance of the rule’s hearing requirement and observed that “judgments of dismissal entered without such a hearing are subject to reversal.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hopper Resources, Inc. v. Webster
green
1 sentence2011The trial court, although attempting to use its equitable powers to achieve what it believed to be a more fair and balanced result, failed to appreciate the importance of the doctrine “ ‘equity follows the law.’ ” Hopper Resources, 878 N.E.2d at 422 (quoting 12 I.L.E. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Francis v. Newman
neutral
1 sentence2010Our supreme court recently reiterated the importance of the hearing requirement of Trial Rule 37(A)(4) to resolve discovery disputes and sanction awards in Francis v. Newman, No. 49802-1003-CV-137, 929 N.E.2d 787 (Ind. Mar. 10, 2010) (Order Granting Transfer And Remanding to Trial Court). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Huff v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence2004As noted above, "[ilf there is relevant evidence which supports the verdict, then the motion may not properly be granted because evidence which supports the verdict is sufficient evidence, and the final determination is left to the fact finder." Huff, at 421-422, 363 N.E.2d at 990 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Shornick, Rec. v. Butler
green
2 sentences1996Public policy, some courts have said, is a term of vague and uncertain meaning. ...'" Schornick v. Butler (1933), 205 Ind. 304 , 185 N.E. 111, 112-113 , reh'g denied (quoting Hogston v. Bell (1916), 185 Ind. 536 , 112 N.E. 883 ). 1996Public policy, some courts have said, is a term of vague and uncertain meaning. ...'" Schornick v. Butler (1933), 205 Ind. 304 , 185 N.E. 111, 112-113 , reh'g denied (quoting Hogston v. Bell (1916), 185 Ind. 536 , 112 N.E. 883 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hogston v. Bell
green
2 sentences1996Public policy, some courts have said, is a term of vague and uncertain meaning. ...'" Schornick v. Butler (1933), 205 Ind. 304 , 185 N.E. 111, 112-113 , reh'g denied (quoting Hogston v. Bell (1916), 185 Ind. 536 , 112 N.E. 883 ). 1996Public policy, some courts have said, is a term of vague and uncertain meaning. ...'" Schornick v. Butler (1933), 205 Ind. 304 , 185 N.E. 111, 112-113 , reh'g denied (quoting Hogston v. Bell (1916), 185 Ind. 536 , 112 N.E. 883 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Malcolm Simmons and Doris Simmons v. Teresa D. Fenton and James L. Garrison
green
1 sentence1987The supreme court recognized the importance of this requirement, citing Simmons v. Fenton (7th Cir.1973), 480 F.2d 133 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences1979Writing for the majority in In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (Black, J., dissenting), Justice Brennan discussed the importance of the requirement that a conviction cannot be sustained absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt: “The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. 1979Writing for the majority in In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (Black, J., dissenting), Justice Brennan discussed the importance of the requirement that a conviction cannot be sustained absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt: “The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Pelts v. State
neutral
1 sentence1881As early as 1832, in the case of Pelts v. The State, 3 Blackf. 28 , the rule was distinctly recognized. | 1 | 1881–1881 |
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.