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.
13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Probst, Receiver v. Spitznaglegreen2 sentences2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part 2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 9 |
City of Decatur v. Eadygreen2 sentences2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part 2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 9 |
Canfield v. Sandockgreen1 sentence2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 1 |
Morgen v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Dyer v. Doylegreen1 sentence2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 1 |
Pardue v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Indianagreen1 sentence2008Our supreme court has also stated that “[w]e will assume that the erroneous instruction influenced the jury’s verdict unless it appears from the evidence that the verdict could not have differed even with a proper instruction.” Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind.1990); see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1156 (Ind.2003) (citing Canfield for the same rule); Propst v. Spitznagle, 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1939) (“In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from ... part | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Employers' Insurance v. Cornell
green
2 sentences1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: “It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.” The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: “It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.” The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 | 4 | 1948–1987 |
Perkins v. Sullivan
neutral
2 sentences1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 | 2 | 1976–1976 |
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll
green
2 sentences1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 | 2 | 1976–1976 |
Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1957Co. v. Cornell, supra; Hayes Freight Lines v. Wilson (1948) 226 Ind. 1, 13 , 77 N. E. 2d 580 ; Dallas & Mavis Fwdg. 1957Co. v. Cornell, supra; Hayes Freight Lines v. Wilson (1948) 226 Ind. 1, 13 , 77 N. E. 2d 580 ; Dallas & Mavis Fwdg. | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. DeArk
green
2 sentences1976Co. v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 . [1] Other cases have pointed out that the focus is upon whether the jury may have been misled. 1976Co. v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 . [1] Other cases have pointed out that the focus is upon whether the jury may have been misled. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Brown v. Slentz
green
1 sentence1974Louis Railroad Company v. Henderson (1957), 237 Ind. 456 , 147 N.E.2d 239 , cited the general rule on the effect of an erroneous instruction as follows: “• . . it is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this Court assumes that the error influenced the rest unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record, that the verdict under proper circumstances could not have been different. . . .” Under the rule laid down by Chief Justice Em | 1 | 1974–1974 |
New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1974Louis Railroad Company v. Henderson (1957), 237 Ind. 456 , 147 N.E.2d 239 , cited the general rule on the effect of an erroneous instruction as follows: “• . . it is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this Court assumes that the error influenced the rest unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record, that the verdict under proper circumstances could not have been different. . . .” Under the rule laid down by Chief Justice Em | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Sweeney v. Vierbuchen
green
2 sentences1957Sweeney v. Vierbuchen (1946), 224 Ind. 341, 347 , 66 N.E.2d 764 : "... `In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.' Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 , 115 N.E. 577 ." See also American Employers' Ins. 1957Sweeney v. Vierbuchen (1946), 224 Ind. 341, 347 , 66 N.E.2d 764 : "... `In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.' Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 , 115 N.E. 577 ." See also American Employers' Ins. | 1 | 1957–1957 |