101 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Short v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Id. (citing Short v. State, 443 N.E.2d 298, 308 (Ind.1982)). 2005Short v. State, 443 N.E.2d 298, 303 (Ind.1982). | 6 | 7 |
State v. Farbergreen2 sentences2009"In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement." Id. (citing State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111, 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.1997)). 2009"In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement." Id. (citing State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111, 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.1997)). | 4 | 4 |
Halsema v. Stategreen2 sentences2018“In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. “[E]vidence obtained pursuant to an illegal search is inadmissible at trial.” Blankenship v. State, 5 N.E.3d 779, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 2016Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 676 (Ind.2005). | 3 | 6 |
Twyman v. Stategreen2 sentences1984The burden of proving the defense rests entirely upon the State." 459 N.E.2d at 712 (emphasis added). 1984The burden of proving the defense rests entirely upon the State. " 459 N.E.2d at 712 (emphasis added). | 3 | 6 |
Swanson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Swanson v. State, 730 N.E.2d 205, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. 2016See, e.g., Swanson v. State, 730 N.E.2d 205, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Joegreen2 sentences2001Id.; State v. Joe, 693 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. 2001Id.; State v. Joe, 693 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), reh’g denied, trans. denied . | 3 | 3 |
Common Council of Peru v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc.green2 sentences2001Id. 2000Thus, we concluded that “liberal construction of a statute requires narrow construction of its exceptions,” and further explained that a strict construction is effected “by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it.” Id. (quoting Common Council of City of Peru v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). | 2 | 3 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 233-34 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) (positing that state law may assign a defendant the burden of proof on a defense of self-defense); Moore v. State, 673 N.E.2d 776, 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. 2005Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. *715 228, 233-34, 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) (positing that state law may assign defendant burden of proof on defense of self-defense); Moore v. State, 673 N.E.2d 776, 779 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Melendez v. Indianagreen2 sentences2014Melendez v. State, 511 N.E.2d 454, 457-458 (Ind. 1987). 2013Melendez v. State, 511 N.E.2d 454, 457-58 (Ind. 1987). | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Huffman, supra, at 901 n. 2 (error to instruct jury that "The burden of proving this defense is on the Defendant"); Street, supra, at 104 (error to instruct jury that "defendant has the burden of proving that the defendant reached this degree of intoxication"); Hall v. State, 574 N.E.2d 287, 288 (Ind.1991) (error to instruct jury that "defendant has the burden of proof for the defense of intoxication"). 1996See Huffman, supra, at 901 n. 2 (error to instruct jury that “The burden of proving this defense is on the Defendant”); Street, supra, at 104 (error to instruct jury that “defendant has the burden of proving that the defendant reached this degree of intoxication”); Hall v. State, 574 N.E.2d 287, 288 (Ind.1991) (error to instruct jury that “defendant has the burden of proof for the defense of intoxication”). | 2 | 2 |
Lawshe v. Glen Park Lbr. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2016To preserve an affirmative defense, the party with the burden of proving the defense “must either have set forth the defense in a responsive pleading or show that the defense was litigated by the parties.” Lawshe v. Glen Park Lumber Co., 176 Ind. App. 344, 347 , 375 N.E.2d 275, 277-78 (1978). 2016To preserve an affirmative defense, the party with the burden of proving the defense “must either have set forth the defense in a responsive pleading or show that the defense was litigated by the parties.” Lawshe v. Glen Park Lumber Co., 176 Ind. App. 344, 347 , 375 N.E.2d 275, 277-78 (1978). | 1 | 4 |
Blatchford v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“As a result, the burden of proving the defense remains on the defendant.” Blatchford, 673 N.E.2d at 783 . 2001Blatchford v. State, 673 N.E.2d 781, 783 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Huffmangreen2 sentences1996See Huffman, supra, at 901 n. 2 (error to instruct jury that "The burden of proving this defense is on the Defendant"); Street, supra, at 104 (error to instruct jury that "defendant has the burden of proving that the defendant reached this degree of intoxication"); Hall v. State, 574 N.E.2d 287, 288 (Ind.1991) (error to instruct jury that "defendant has the burden of proof for the defense of intoxication"). 1996See Huffman, supra, at 901 n. 2 (error to instruct jury that “The burden of proving this defense is on the Defendant”); Street, supra, at 104 (error to instruct jury that “defendant has the burden of proving that the defendant reached this degree of intoxication”); Hall v. State, 574 N.E.2d 287, 288 (Ind.1991) (error to instruct jury that “defendant has the burden of proof for the defense of intoxication”). | 1 | 2 |
Peavler v. BD. OF COM'RS MONROE CTY.green1 sentence2019See Peavler v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe Cty., 528 N.E.2d 40, 46 (Ind. 1988) (stating the burden of proving immunity is on the governmental entity seeking its benefit). | 1 | 1 |
Kimberly D. Blankenship v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018“In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. “[E]vidence obtained pursuant to an illegal search is inadmissible at trial.” Blankenship v. State, 5 N.E.3d 779, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Angela Lundy v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018“The existence of a valid prescription for a controlled substance is a defense to the crime of possession” and “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Lundy v. State, 26 N.E.3d 656, 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Cooper v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Adam Miller v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014Miller v. State 991 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Hoffa v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oelling v. Raogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spar v. Chagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bader v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Champion Motor Home Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| GKC Indiana Theatres, Inc. v. Elk Retail Investors, LLC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Krise v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Street v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cuppett v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Comark Merchandising, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Highland Group, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Basham v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Callahan v. State
green
2 sentences2009"In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement." Id. (citing State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111, 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.1997)). 2009"In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement." Id. (citing State v. Farber, 677 N.E.2d 1111, 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.1997)). | 3 | 2006–2012 |
Lafary v. Lafary
green
2 sentences1992Lafary v. Lafary (1985), Ind. App., 476 N.E.2d 155, 159 . 1992Lafary v. Lafary (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 155, 159 . | 3 | 1989–1992 |
Martin v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2024Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 233-34 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) (positing that state law may assign a defendant the burden of proof on a defense of self-defense); Moore v. State, 673 N.E.2d 776, 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. 2024Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 233-34 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) (positing that state law may assign a defendant the burden of proof on a defense of self-defense); Moore v. State, 673 N.E.2d 776, 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. | 2 | 2005–2024 |
Salem Community School Corp. v. Richman
green
2 sentences2018Id. [25] However, while the existence of facts necessary to constitute a waiver of a contract provision is ordinarily a question of fact, the question of the facts necessary to constitute a waiver is a matter of law. 1991Salem Community School Corp. v. Richman (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 269, 274 . | 2 | 1991–2018 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 1 Subsequently amended by Pub. 2015Id. [6] On December 3, 2013, Lundy served a request for production of documents by a non-party and a subpoena duces tecum on “INSPECT RX.” Appellant’s App. p. 35. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Ammons v. State
green
2 sentences2012“In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. 2012“In cases involving a warrantless search, the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Olson v. State
green
2 sentences1991In Olson v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 565 , this Court criticized a voluntary intoxication defense instruction which had included the sentence, "The burden of proving this defense is on the defendant[,]" but refused to declare its giving fundamental error. 1991In Olson v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 565 , this Court criticized a voluntary intoxication defense instruction which had included the sentence, "The burden of proving this defense is on the defendant[,]" but refused to declare its giving fundamental error. | 2 | 1991–1994 |
Railway Express Agency v. Harrington
green
2 sentences1955The limitation of time for filing the claim, as provided in the Act, is a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action and the burden of proving the claim was filed within the allotted period is upon the claimant. *500 Railway Express Agency v. Harrington (1949), 119 Ind. App. 593, 596 , 88 N.E.2d 175 . 1955The limitation of time for filing the claim, as provided in the Act, is a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action and the burden of proving the claim was filed within the allotted period is upon the claimant. *500 Railway Express Agency v. Harrington (1949), 119 Ind. App. 593, 596 , 88 N.E.2d 175 . | 2 | 1955–1957 |
Munster v. Groce
green
1 sentence2019Id. [6] Indiana Trial Rule 4.13(A) provides that if a party seeks to serve notice by publication, that party must submit the request “along with supporting affidavits that diligent search has been made that the defendant cannot be found, has concealed his whereabouts, or has left the state . . . .” Fragoso Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1195 | October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7 argues that the affidavit submitted by Avila is insufficiently detailed to meet this standard. [7] We acknowledge that the affidavit does not contain a wealth of detail, but find that what it does co | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lundquist v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. [12] The "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement allows police to search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2018Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 617 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bertoch v. NBD CORP.
green
1 sentence2017See Ind. Code § 22-3-2-2 (a); Bertoch, 813 N.E.2d at 1161 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Navarro v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Jaynes v. State
green
1 sentence2014Jaynes, 437 N.E.2d at 139 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Robinson v. Indiana University green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Pinkney v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Howard v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| GKN Co. v. Magness green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Perry v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Willis v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Baker v. Town of Middlebury green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Melton v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Heltzel v. Thomas green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Berry v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Dale R. Horning Co. v. Falconer Glass Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Callahan v. State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Huffman v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Get-N-Go, Inc. v. Markins green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Get-N-Go, Inc. v. Markins green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. Mason green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Thompson v. Town of Fort Branch green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Patterson v. New York green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Colaw v. Nicholson green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Gates v. Rosenogle green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Richardson v. Brown neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Merimee v. Brumfield green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.