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.
15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abel v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n.1 (Ind. 2002) (holding that because the defendant presented no authority or independent analysis supporting a separate standard under the state constitution, any state constitutional claim is waived). 2018See also Decker, 19 N.E.3d at 375 n.3 (“Failure to make a cogent argument under the Indiana Constitution constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal.”) (citing Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n.1 (Ind. 2002)). [28] Notwithstanding any issues of waiver, we cannot agree with Dangerfield to the extent that he argues that the police conduct was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. | 7 | 8 |
West v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8); Polk v. State, 822 N.E.2d 239 , 245 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 181 (Ind. 2001)), trans. denied. 5 product of an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.5 The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures and this protection has been extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 2013See Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n. 1 (Ind.2002) (concluding state constitutional claim waived where defendant presented no authority or independent analysis supporting separate standard under state constitution); West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 181 (Ind.2001) (citations omitted); Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). 4 . | 4 | 4 |
Spranger v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117 , 1126 n. 2 (Ind.1995) ("This failure to present legal analysis to support a claimed violation of the Indiana Constitution constitutes waiver of such an argument."). [13] IND.CODE § 35-50-2-4 ("A person who commits a Class A felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of thirty (30) years, with not more than twenty (20) years added for aggravating circumstances or not more than ten (10) years subtracted for mitigating circumstances...."). [14] Id. § 35-50-2-6(a) ("A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of four (4) years 2001See Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117 , 1126 n. 2 (Ind.1995) ("'This failure to present legal analysis to support a claimed violation of the Indiana Constitution constitutes waiver of such an argument."). . | 2 | 2 |
Paul Allen Decker v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018See also Decker, 19 N.E.3d at 375 n.3 (“Failure to make a cogent argument under the Indiana Constitution constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal.”) (citing Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n.1 (Ind. 2002)). [28] Notwithstanding any issues of waiver, we cannot agree with Dangerfield to the extent that he argues that the police conduct was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
Rybolt v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, eg., Rybolt v. State, 770 N.E.2d 935 , 942 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (the defendant to provide an independent analysis of Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution," and "the failure to make a cogent argument under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal"), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Polk v. State
green
1 sentence2014See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8); Polk v. State, 822 N.E.2d 239 , 245 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 181 (Ind. 2001)), trans. denied. 5 product of an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.5 The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures and this protection has been extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bivins v. State
green
1 sentence1995Bivins v. State (1994), Ind., 642 N.E.2d 928 , 936 n. 1. 3 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.