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.
14 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vest v. Stategreen2 sentences2026An information or instruction is disjunctive if it joins “separate and distinct offenses in one and the same count.” Id. (citing Vest v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied). 2025An information or instruction is disjunctive if it joins “separate and distinct offenses in one and the same count.” Id. (citing Vest v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Townsend v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“A single count of a charging pleading may include but a single offense.” Townsend v. State, 632 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind. 1994). 2025“A single count of a charging pleading may include but a single offense.” Townsend v. State, 632 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind. 1994). | 2 | 2 |
Schlabach v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The trial court disagreed, and denied the motion to correct error. [11] This appeal proceeded. 2 The jury found Jackson not guilty. 3 This procedure, the Davis/Hatton procedure, is authorized by Ind. App. R. 37 “‘to develop an evidentiary record for issues that with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered before the time for filing a motion to correct error or a notice of appeal has passed.’” Peaver v. State, 937 N.E.2d 896, 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Schlabach v. State, 842 N.E.2d 411, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Peaver v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The trial court disagreed, and denied the motion to correct error. [11] This appeal proceeded. 2 The jury found Jackson not guilty. 3 This procedure, the Davis/Hatton procedure, is authorized by Ind. App. R. 37 “‘to develop an evidentiary record for issues that with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered before the time for filing a motion to correct error or a notice of appeal has passed.’” Peaver v. State, 937 N.E.2d 896, 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Schlabach v. State, 842 N.E.2d 411, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Williams v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1019, 1023-24 (Ind. 2003). 2007See Williams v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1019, 1023-24 (Ind. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Prewitt v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Prewitt, 819 N.E.2d at 401 . | 1 | 1 |
Wisehart v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23, 63 (Ind.1998) (rejecting defendant's claim that the charging information was defective despite the fact that the burglary supporting the felony murder count did not allege an intent to commit a specific felony). | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Inherent Authority to Dismiss Sivels asserts, as he did in the hearing on the motion to dismiss, that the trial court “had the inherent authority to take up [his] Motion to Dismiss the Information and rule favorably thereon.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.) He supports this contention by citing Hawkins v. State, 125 Ind. 570, 573 , 25 N.E. 818, 819 (1890), in which we said, “When a court is created by the legislature under the constitution, all the powers essential to the existence of the tribunal, and the due exercise of its powers, at once vest in it from the constitution. ... 2001Inherent Authority to Dismiss Sivels asserts, as he did in the hearing on the motion to dismiss, that the trial court “had the inherent authority to take up [his] Motion to Dismiss the Information and rule favorably thereon.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.) He supports this contention by citing Hawkins v. State, 125 Ind. 570, 573 , 25 N.E. 818, 819 (1890), in which we said, “When a court is created by the legislature under the constitution, all the powers essential to the existence of the tribunal, and the due exercise of its powers, at once vest in it from the constitution. ... | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Cf. Sides v. State, 693 N.E.2d 1310, 1312-13 (Ind.1998) (deletion of the word “auto” from “auto theft” in habitual offender allegation was non-substantive and did not prejudice defendant); Taylor v. State, 663 N.E.2d 213, 218 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (deletion of “mere surplusage” from the information was not error), tmns. denied In the parlance of Sharp , the amendment did not cause Haak to lose any defenses or affect the application of his evidence to the crimes charged; nor was it essential to the making of a criminal charge. | 1 | 1 |
Sides v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Cf. Sides v. State, 693 N.E.2d 1310, 1312-13 (Ind.1998) (deletion of the word “auto” from “auto theft” in habitual offender allegation was non-substantive and did not prejudice defendant); Taylor v. State, 663 N.E.2d 213, 218 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (deletion of “mere surplusage” from the information was not error), tmns. denied In the parlance of Sharp , the amendment did not cause Haak to lose any defenses or affect the application of his evidence to the crimes charged; nor was it essential to the making of a criminal charge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. State
green
2 sentences2026An information or instruction is disjunctive if it joins “separate and distinct offenses in one and the same count.” Id. (citing Vest v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied). 2025An information or instruction is disjunctive if it joins “separate and distinct offenses in one and the same count.” Id. (citing Vest v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1221, 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Paternity of L.A. Ex Rel. Eppinger v. Adams
green
2 sentences2005Although neither party mentions In re Paternity of L.A. by Eppinger v. Adams, 803 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied, we note that in that case the prosecutor's office filed an information for rule to show cause why the father should not be held in contempt for his failure to pay a child support arrearage. 2005Id. at 1197-1198 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.
red
2 sentences2004(C) That adoption alternatives are available and that adoptive parents may legally pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. (3) The pregnant woman certifies in writing, before the abortion is performed, that the information required by subdivisions (1) and (2) has been provided. [5] In this instance, then, a material burden on women's access to abortion is equivalent to a material burden on the core constitutional value of privacy underlying their right to obtain abortions. [6] In their complaint, Appellants present an extensive list of "Factual Allegations" pertaining to 2004(C) That adoption alternatives are available and that adoptive parents may legally pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. (3) The pregnant woman certifies in writing, before the abortion is performed, that the information required by subdivisions (1) and (2) has been provided. [5] In this instance, then, a material burden on women's access to abortion is equivalent to a material burden on the core constitutional value of privacy underlying their right to obtain abortions. [6] In their complaint, Appellants present an extensive list of "Factual Allegations" pertaining to | 1 | 2004–2004 |
UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence2000Id. (citations omitted)., The taxpayer in UACC Midwest had filed amended returns on Form IT-20X, along with explanatory statements attached *595 thereto, within three years of the due dates of the gross income tax returns at issue. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sharp v. State
green
1 sentence1998Sharp, 534 N.E.2d at 714 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Abdul-Wadood v. State
green
2 sentences1994Abdul-Wadood, 521 N.E.2d at 1300-01 . 1994Abdul-Wadood, 521 N.E.2d at 1300-01 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Heflin v. State
green
2 sentences1982Heflin v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 427 , 370 N.E.2d 895 . 1982Heflin v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 427 , 370 N.E.2d 895 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. William Edward Lindsey
green
1 sentence1980Joseph Byrne, William Gibbs, Cecil Brown, and Raymond Reed did unite, combine, conspire, confederate and agree (to and with each other), . . . .” In support of his contentions, Brown relies heavily upon United States v. Lindsey, (7th Cir. 1979) 602 F.2d 785 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.