12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2001Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923) (required that proponents of novel scientific evidence demonstrate that the scientific principle or technique upon which the opinion testimony depended was "sufficiently established to have gained acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”). . 2001This unconventional presentation has made our review challenging. [4] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923) (required that proponents of novel scientific evidence demonstrate that the scientific principle or technique upon which the opinion testimony depended was "sufficiently established to have gained acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."). [5] The defendant's argument is based in large part upon federal decisions applying Daubert. | 1 | 2 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Estate of Wagersgreen1 sentence2013Norfolk S. Ry. v. Estate of Wagers, 833 N.E.2d 93, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert Beam Runyan, United States of America v. Robert Beam Runyangreen2 sentences2006The court rejected a Walter challenge to the testing: "In the present case, [the sister] had the authority to possess and control the items and could right-fully consent to a complete scientific analysis, whereas the third party in Walter never had rightful possession or control of the pornographic films involved in that case and could not properly consent to an expansive search of them."); but see United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464-66 (5th Cir.2001) (Defendant's estranged wife broke into defendant's ranch in defendant's absence, removed several CDs, zip and floppy disks and viewed som 2006The court rejected a Walter challenge to the testing: "In the present case, [the sister] had the authority to possess and control the items and could rightfully consent to a complete scientific analysis, whereas the third parly in Walter never had rightful possession or control of the pornographic films involved in that case and could not properly consent to an expansive search of them.”); hut see United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464-66 (5th Cir.2001) (Defendant's estranged wife broke into defendant’s ranch in defendant's absence, removed several CDs, zip and floppy disks and viewed some | 1 | 1 |
Bickley v. Stategreen1 sentence2000We agree with the trial court that “[i]n this respect, DNA results are like fingerprints which are maintained on file by law enforcement authorities for use in further investigations.” Id. at 170 (emphasis supplied); accord Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 , 752 A.2d 1250, 1272 (2000) (“Once an individual’s fingerprints and/or blood sample for DNA testing are in lawful police possession, that individual is no more immune from being caught by the DNA sample he leaves on the body of his rape victim than he is from being caught by the fingerprint he leaves on the window....”); People v. King, 232 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kinggreen2 sentences2000We agree with the trial court that “[i]n this respect, DNA results are like fingerprints which are maintained on file by law enforcement authorities for use in further investigations.” Id. at 170 (emphasis supplied); accord Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 , 752 A.2d 1250, 1272 (2000) (“Once an individual’s fingerprints and/or blood sample for DNA testing are in lawful police possession, that individual is no more immune from being caught by the DNA sample he leaves on the body of his rape victim than he is from being caught by the fingerprint he leaves on the window....”); People v. King, 232 2000We agree with the trial court that “[i]n this respect, DNA results are like fingerprints which are maintained on file by law enforcement authorities for use in further investigations.” Id. at 170 (emphasis supplied); accord Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 , 752 A.2d 1250, 1272 (2000) (“Once an individual’s fingerprints and/or blood sample for DNA testing are in lawful police possession, that individual is no more immune from being caught by the DNA sample he leaves on the body of his rape victim than he is from being caught by the fingerprint he leaves on the window....”); People v. King, 232 | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2000We agree with the trial court that “[i]n this respect, DNA results are like fingerprints which are maintained on file by law enforcement authorities for use in further investigations.” Id. at 170 (emphasis supplied); accord Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 , 752 A.2d 1250, 1272 (2000) (“Once an individual’s fingerprints and/or blood sample for DNA testing are in lawful police possession, that individual is no more immune from being caught by the DNA sample he leaves on the body of his rape victim than he is from being caught by the fingerprint he leaves on the window....”); People v. King, 232 2000We agree with the trial court that “[i]n this respect, DNA results are like fingerprints which are maintained on file by law enforcement authorities for use in further investigations.” Id. at 170 (emphasis supplied); accord Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 , 752 A.2d 1250, 1272 (2000) (“Once an individual’s fingerprints and/or blood sample for DNA testing are in lawful police possession, that individual is no more immune from being caught by the DNA sample he leaves on the body of his rape victim than he is from being caught by the fingerprint he leaves on the window....”); People v. King, 232 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robert Beam Runyan, United States of America v. Robert Beam Runyangreen2 sentences2006The court rejected a Walter challenge to the testing: "In the present case, [the sister] had the authority to possess and control the items and could right-fully consent to a complete scientific analysis, whereas the third party in Walter never had rightful possession or control of the pornographic films involved in that case and could not properly consent to an expansive search of them."); but see United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464-66 (5th Cir.2001) (Defendant's estranged wife broke into defendant's ranch in defendant's absence, removed several CDs, zip and floppy disks and viewed som 2006The court rejected a Walter challenge to the testing: "In the present case, [the sister] had the authority to possess and control the items and could rightfully consent to a complete scientific analysis, whereas the third parly in Walter never had rightful possession or control of the pornographic films involved in that case and could not properly consent to an expansive search of them.”); hut see United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464-66 (5th Cir.2001) (Defendant's estranged wife broke into defendant’s ranch in defendant's absence, removed several CDs, zip and floppy disks and viewed some | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cornett v. State
green
2 sentences1990In Frye , the court, dealing with the admission of polygraph evidence, held "that while courts are willing to admit expert testimony about a scientific principle or procedure, `the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.'" Cornett, supra, at 503 . 1990In Frye , the court, dealing with the admission of polygraph evidence, held “that while courts are willing to admit expert testimony about a scientific principle or procedure, ‘the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Cornett, supra, at 503 . | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Lytle v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 311 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Block v. Lake Mortg. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2002“Mere expressions of opinion cannot be the basis for an action in fraud; an action in fraud requires a misrepresentation of material fact.” Id. “[A]n appraisal of property is not the result of a scientific analysis, but is, rather, a subjective opinion which can and does differ from the next appraisal even though both may be based on current real estate market trends.” Id. 2002“Mere expressions of opinion cannot be the basis for an action in fraud; an action in fraud requires a misrepresentation of material fact.” Id. “[A]n appraisal of property is not the result of a scientific analysis, but is, rather, a subjective opinion which can and does differ from the next appraisal even though both may be based on current real estate market trends.” Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Peterson v. State
green
1 sentence2001RRD directs our attention to Peterson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.1987). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hayes v. State
green
2 sentences1998The Hayes court concluded that the “fact that a scientific test is subject to error if not properly conducted is not a reason for rejecting the evidence adduced by such a test.” Id. at 338 . 1998The Hayes court concluded that the "fact that a scientific test is subject to error if not properly conducted is not a reason for rejecting the evidence adduced by such a test." Id. at 338 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1993Smith v. State (1986), Ind.App., 502 N.E.2d 122 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Owens v. State
green
1 sentence1980We agree that where the results of the polygraph examination are offered into evidence the opposing party has the right to cross-examine the examiner as to: “a. the examiner’s qualifications and training; “b. the conditions under which the test was administered; “c. the limitations of and possibilities for error in the technique of polygraphic interrogation; and “d. at the discretion of the trial judge, any other matter deemed pertinent to the inquiry.” Owens v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 373 N.E.2d 913, 915 . | 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.