11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sidle v. Majorsgreen1 sentence2019Sidle v. Majors, 341 N.E.2d 763, 766 (Ind. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 945 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General and Rick J. Ruble, Commissioner of the In. Dept. of Labor v. James M. Sweeney, David A. Fagan, Charles Seversgreen1 sentence2019Discussion and Decision [4] Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the burden of proof standard for termination of parental rights in Indiana is unconstitutional.2 When we review the constitutionality of an Indiana statute, “the statute comes before us afresh, ‘clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.’” State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136 , 141 (citing Zoeller v. Sweeney, 19 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Boehm v. Town of St. | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Stategreen1 sentence2000“To constitute an abuse of discretion, the instruction given must be erroneous, and the instructions taken as a whole must misstate the law or otherwise mislead the jury.” Coleman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1022, 1027 (Ind.1998), petition for cert, filed (U.S. Aug. 9, 1999) (No. 99-5670): Here, the trial court’s instruction began with the statement that “[t]he State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Barber v. State, 715 N.E.2d 848, 851-52 (Ind.1999), we held that, in light of the first sentence of the instruction, which clearly stated that the State bore t | 1 | 1 |
Barber v. Stategreen1 sentence2000“To constitute an abuse of discretion, the instruction given must be erroneous, and the instructions taken as a whole must misstate the law or otherwise mislead the jury.” Coleman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1022, 1027 (Ind.1998), petition for cert, filed (U.S. Aug. 9, 1999) (No. 99-5670): Here, the trial court’s instruction began with the statement that “[t]he State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Barber v. State, 715 N.E.2d 848, 851-52 (Ind.1999), we held that, in light of the first sentence of the instruction, which clearly stated that the State bore t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re GY
green
2 sentences2009Discussion I Our recent opinion in R.Y. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. sets forth at some length the relevant constitutional and statutory framework, as well as the burden of proof and standard of appellate review, governing proceedings to terminate parental rights. 904 N.E.2d at 1259-61 . 2009Discussion I Our recent opinion in R.Y. v. Ind. Dept of Child Servs. sets forth at some length the relevant constitutional and statutory framework, as well as the burden of proof and standard of appellate review, governing proceedings to terminate parental rights. 904 N.E.2d at 1259-61 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
green
1 sentence2019Sidle v. Majors, 341 N.E.2d 763, 766 (Ind. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 945 (1976). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Conditional Admission of Bar Applicant No. E03424
green
1 sentence2019Discussion and Decision [4] Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the burden of proof standard for termination of parental rights in Indiana is unconstitutional.2 When we review the constitutionality of an Indiana statute, “the statute comes before us afresh, ‘clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.’” State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136 , 141 (citing Zoeller v. Sweeney, 19 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Boehm v. Town of St. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Perez v. United States Steel Corp.
green
1 sentence2002Appellate Review In Perez II, our Supreme Court explained that because a claimant bears the burden of proof at hearing, the unsuccessful claimant who seeks to challenge the denial of his application appeals from a negative judgment. 428 N.E.2d 212, 216 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pierce v. HORVATH
green
2 sentences1993However, the court in Pierce v. Horvath (1968), Ind.App., 233 N.E.2d 811 , found that combining a proper burden of proof instruction with an impermissible reference to a “mere accident” did not cure the defectiveness of the instruction and reversed. 1993Id. at 816-817 . 3 Johnson first argues that Instruction F-10 “mirrors the charge given in Pardue v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Indiana (1980), Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 1154, 1159 , which was upheld by the Court of Appeals_” Johnson’s Brief at 10. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Pardue v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Indiana
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 816-817 . 3 Johnson first argues that Instruction F-10 “mirrors the charge given in Pardue v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Indiana (1980), Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 1154, 1159 , which was upheld by the Court of Appeals_” Johnson’s Brief at 10. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences1992Instruction on Flight The defendant asserts that an instruction given on flight created a presumption of guilt upon proof of flight and shifted the burden of proof in violation of Francis v. Franklin (1985), 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 LEd.2d 344, and Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 LEd.2d 39. 1992Instruction on Flight The defendant asserts that an instruction given on flight created a presumption of guilt upon proof of flight and shifted the burden of proof in violation of Francis v. Franklin (1985), 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 LEd.2d 344, and Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 LEd.2d 39. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Francis v. Franklin
green
2 sentences1992Instruction on Flight The defendant asserts that an instruction given on flight created a presumption of guilt upon proof of flight and shifted the burden of proof in violation of Francis v. Franklin (1985), 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 LEd.2d 344, and Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 LEd.2d 39. 1992Instruction on Flight The defendant asserts that an instruction given on flight created a presumption of guilt upon proof of flight and shifted the burden of proof in violation of Francis v. Franklin (1985), 471 U.S. 307 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 85 LEd.2d 344, and Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 LEd.2d 39. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences1987The trial court stated on the record it had given a burden of proof instruction. - Bloomington, as appellant, bore the obligation of demonstrating error occurred, Cox v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 664 , yet Bloomington did not choose to supply this court with the record of the preliminary instructions. 1987The trial court stated on the record it had given a burden of proof instruction. - Bloomington, as appellant, bore the obligation of demonstrating error occurred, Cox v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 664 , yet Bloomington did not choose to supply this court with the record of the preliminary instructions. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Langley v. State
green
2 sentences1983Discussing burden of proof in such cases, Justice Prentice said The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson [v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538 ] (supra ) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. 1983Discussing burden of proof in such cases, Justice Prentice said The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson [v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538 ] (supra ) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Jessop v. Werner Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences1975Instead it is a burden of proof instruction similar to the one approved in Perry v. Goss, supra. See, also, Chamberlain v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc., supra; Jessop v. Werner Transportation Co. (1970), 147 Ind. App. 408 , 261 N.E.2d 598 . 1975Instead it is a burden of proof instruction similar to the one approved in Perry v. Goss, supra. See, also, Chamberlain v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc., supra; Jessop v. Werner Transportation Co. (1970), 147 Ind. App. 408 , 261 N.E.2d 598 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.