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 1997–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2017We have explained, however, “[T]hese factors are not intended as a litmus test and do not need to be consulted if the character of the relationship is clearly ‘domestic.’” Bowling v. State, 995 N.E.2d 715 , 717 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Williams v. State, 798 N.E.2d 457, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)); Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d. 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “[T]he domestic battery statute envisions a situation, among others, where individuals are (or were) involved in an ongoing relationship and cohabitating.” Bowling, 995 N.E.2d at 717 . [18] Here, L.H. testified that Garcia was her boyf 2013We have explained, however, that these factors are not intended as a litmus test and do not need to be consulted "if the character of the relationship is clearly 'domestic.'" Williams v. State, 798 N.E.2d at 461 . 5 . | 5 | 6 |
Croy v. Stategreen2 sentences2017We have explained, however, “[T]hese factors are not intended as a litmus test and do not need to be consulted if the character of the relationship is clearly ‘domestic.’” Bowling v. State, 995 N.E.2d 715 , 717 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Williams v. State, 798 N.E.2d 457, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)); Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d. 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “[T]he domestic battery statute envisions a situation, among others, where individuals are (or were) involved in an ongoing relationship and cohabitating.” Bowling, 995 N.E.2d at 717 . [18] Here, L.H. testified that Garcia was her boyf 2013While the statutory factors provide a useful framework, this court has held that “[t]he legislature did not intend for these factors to serve as a litmus test[.]” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). | 3 | 3 |
Beene v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Servicesgreen2 sentences2010Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Emp. & Training Servs., 528 N.E.2d 842, 846 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) ("The fact that [claimant]'s absences and tardiness were allegedly caused from occurrences `beyond her control' is not the litmus test in Indiana.... 2010Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Emp. & Training Servs., 528 N.E.2d 842, 846 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) ("The fact that [claimant]'s absences and tardiness were allegedly caused from occurrences 'beyond her control is not the litmus test in Indiana.... | 2 | 2 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Therefore, “admissibility hinges on relevance, not a litmus test based on an isolated factor – remoteness, similarity, or anything else – that may bear on relevance.” Id. [34] We further note that the State established the timeliness of the Facebook video in two respects. 2015Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 220 (Ind. 1997). [11] Walker challenges the admission of the testimony of two witnesses. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeffboat, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
green
2 sentences2010As long as the [e]mployer puts forth a prima facie case for discharge under [subsection (d)(2)], insufficiently rebutted by the employee, the employee's discharge and denial of benefits can be upheld." (citing Jeffboat, 464 N.E.2d at 380 )). 2010As long as the [employer puts forth a prima facie case for discharge under [subsection (d)(2) ], insufficiently rebutted by the employee, the employee's discharge and denial of benefits can be upheld." (citing Jeffboat, 464 N.E.2d at 380 )). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Huddleston v. United States
green
2 sentences1998In short, admissibility hinges on relevance, not a litmus test based on an isolated factor -- remoteness, similarity, or anything else -- that may bear on relevance. (footnote: 6) The third prong of the Seventh Circuit test requires that evidence of a prior bad act must be sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the act. (footnote: 7) It derives from the Seventh Circuit’s reading of Huddleston v. United States , 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S. Ct. 1496 , 99 L. 1998In short, admissibility hinges on relevance, not a litmus test based on an isolated factor -- remoteness, similarity, or anything else -- that may bear on relevance. (footnote: 6) The third prong of the Seventh Circuit test requires that evidence of a prior bad act must be sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the act. (footnote: 7) It derives from the Seventh Circuit’s reading of Huddleston v. United States , 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S. Ct. 1496 , 99 L. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Shayla Bowling v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2017We have explained, however, “[T]hese factors are not intended as a litmus test and do not need to be consulted if the character of the relationship is clearly ‘domestic.’” Bowling v. State, 995 N.E.2d 715 , 717 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Williams v. State, 798 N.E.2d 457, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)); Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d. 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “[T]he domestic battery statute envisions a situation, among others, where individuals are (or were) involved in an ongoing relationship and cohabitating.” Bowling, 995 N.E.2d at 717 . [18] Here, L.H. testified that Garcia was her boyf 2017We have explained, however, “[T]hese factors are not intended as a litmus test and do not need to be consulted if the character of the relationship is clearly ‘domestic.’” Bowling v. State, 995 N.E.2d 715 , 717 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Williams v. State, 798 N.E.2d 457, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)); Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d. 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “[T]he domestic battery statute envisions a situation, among others, where individuals are (or were) involved in an ongoing relationship and cohabitating.” Bowling, 995 N.E.2d at 717 . [18] Here, L.H. testified that Garcia was her boyf | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 689 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.