16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2013State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind. 1989). 2013State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989). | 2 | 2 |
McKinney v. Stategreen1 sentence2017McKinney v. State, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1701-CR-39 | August 9, 2017 Page 6 of 11 873 N.E.2d 630, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1246-47 (discussing procedural default with respect to instructional error); id. at 1250 (rejecting on the merits Conner's related claim of substandard performance by his lawyers). 2005See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1246-47 (discussing procedural default with respect to instructional error); id. at 1250 (rejecting on the merits Conner's related claim of substandard performance by his lawyers). | 1 | 1 |
Vacendak v. Stategreen1 sentence1982See, Vacendak, supra. In a related claim appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his attorney’s repeated motions to withdraw from the case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences1977The reasoning of the last section would also prevent us from holding that armed robbery is a lesser included offense of felony murder, There is, however, a separate but related rule dealing with penalties for offenses arising from the same operative facts but yet not included one within the other. “[B]efore the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.” Thompson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 587 , 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 302 , 354 N.E.2d 16 1977The reasoning of the last section would also prevent us from holding that armed robbery is a lesser included offense of felony murder, There is, however, a separate but related rule dealing with penalties for offenses arising from the same operative facts but yet not included one within the other. “[B]efore the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.” Thompson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 587 , 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 302 , 354 N.E.2d 16 | 2 | 1977–1978 |
Hudson v. State
green
2 sentences1977The reasoning of the last section would also prevent us from holding that armed robbery is a lesser included offense of felony murder, There is, however, a separate but related rule dealing with penalties for offenses arising from the same operative facts but yet not included one within the other. “[B]efore the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.” Thompson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 587 , 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 302 , 354 N.E.2d 16 1977The reasoning of the last section would also prevent us from holding that armed robbery is a lesser included offense of felony murder, There is, however, a separate but related rule dealing with penalties for offenses arising from the same operative facts but yet not included one within the other. “[B]efore the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.” Thompson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 587 , 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 302 , 354 N.E.2d 16 | 2 | 1977–1978 |
Fraley v. Minger
green
1 sentence2006Recently, however, our Indiana Supreme Court synthesized and reformulated the variously stated requirements for the related doctrine of adverse possession under the common law: “[T]he doctrine of adverse possession entitles a person without title to obtain ownership to a parcel of land upon clear and convincing proof of control, intent, notice, and duration.” Fraley, 829 N.E.2d at 486 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Williams v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2003Williams v. Anderson, 174 F.Supp.2d at 872-73 ). 2003Williams v. Anderson, 174 F.Supp.2d at 872-73 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Guardianship of Ll
green
1 sentence2001The Froelick court held that the de facto custodian statutes were not intended to displace the presumption in favor of parents. 745 N.E.2d at 230 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Trotter v. State
green
1 sentence1983Trotter, supra. In a related claim as to sufficiency of the evidence in support of waiver, appellant claims the juvenile court's decision cannot stand because of the State's failure to present evidence that the dispositional alternatives available within the juvenile system were inadequate. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Harold McMillan
green
1 sentence1983In United States v. McMillan (8th Cir.1974), 508 F.2d 101 , the Eighth Circuit set forth the standards for use of transcripts of tape recordings in situations like the one in the case at bar. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences1981This Court has not considered this precise issue but has considered the doctrine of collateral estoppel as it applies to habitual offender proceedings in Hall v. State, (1980) Ind., 405 N.E.2d 530 . 1981This Court has not considered this precise issue but has considered the doctrine of collateral estoppel as it applies to habitual offender proceedings in Hall v. State, (1980) Ind., 405 N.E.2d 530 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sansom v. State
green
2 sentences1978Candler v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 440 , 363 N.E.2d 1233 , 1243: “ ‘[Before the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.’ Thompson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 587 , [592], 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State (1976), [265] Ind. [302], 354 N.E.2d 164, 170 .” Since neither theft nor automobile banditry is truly a lesser included offense in burglary (inasmuch as it is possible to commit burglary without having first committed either of those crimes 8 ), it was apparently 1978Candler v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 440 , 363 N.E.2d 1233 , 1243: “ ‘[Before the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.’ Thompson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 587 , [592], 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State (1976), [265] Ind. [302], 354 N.E.2d 164, 170 .” Since neither theft nor automobile banditry is truly a lesser included offense in burglary (inasmuch as it is possible to commit burglary without having first committed either of those crimes 8 ), it was apparently | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Candler v. State
green
2 sentences1978Candler v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 440 , 363 N.E.2d 1233 , 1243: “ ‘[Before the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.’ Thompson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 587 , [592], 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State (1976), [265] Ind. [302], 354 N.E.2d 164, 170 .” Since neither theft nor automobile banditry is truly a lesser included offense in burglary (inasmuch as it is possible to commit burglary without having first committed either of those crimes 8 ), it was apparently 1978Candler v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 440 , 363 N.E.2d 1233 , 1243: “ ‘[Before the court may enter judgment and impose sentence upon multiple counts, the facts giving rise to the various offenses must be independently supportable, separate and distinct.’ Thompson v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 587 , [592], 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 ; Hudson v. State (1976), [265] Ind. [302], 354 N.E.2d 164, 170 .” Since neither theft nor automobile banditry is truly a lesser included offense in burglary (inasmuch as it is possible to commit burglary without having first committed either of those crimes 8 ), it was apparently | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Baumer v. State
neutral
1 sentence1978Baumer v. State, (1875) 49 Ind. 544 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bennettsville & Cheraw R. R. v. Hickson Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1976In determining whether the in-court identification was the product of “irreparable misidentification,” this Court looks to the factors enumerated in Swope, supra, at 325 N.E.2d 197 , and in Neil v. Biggers, supra, at 409 U.S. 199 , 93 S.Ct. 382 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Woods v. State
green
2 sentences1971A very similar situation was passed upon by this Court in the case of Woods v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 320 , 119 N. E. 2d 558 . 1971A very similar situation was passed upon by this Court in the case of Woods v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 320 , 119 N. E. 2d 558 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.