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.
11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Averhart v. Stategreen2 sentences1999As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, “[o]nly in cases in which there is such ‘flagrant imposition of the grand jurors’ will or independent judgment’ will the court find a violation of due process.” Wurster , 708 N.E.2d at 592 (quoting Averhart v. State , 470 N.E.2d 666, 679 (Ind. 1984)). 1999As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, “[o]nly in cases in which there is such ‘flagrant imposition of the grand jurors’ will or independent judgment’ will the court find a violation of due process.” Wurster, 708 N.E.2d at 592 (quoting Averhart v. State, 470 N.E.2d 666, 679 (Ind.1984)). | 4 | 4 |
In re Saargreen2 sentences2025In response to our Supreme Court’s holding in Lewis, the General Assembly codified Indiana Code Section 31-32-5-1, which governs the waiver of rights guaranteed to a juvenile, and currently provides, in relevant part: Any rights guaranteed to a child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only: ***** (2) by the child’s custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if: (A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right; (B) that person has no interest adverse to the child; (C) meaningful consult 2025Moreover, as we previously discussed in T.D., “[b]y permitting a court to find waiver in only these limited circumstances, ‘the [Juvenile Waiver Statute] affords juveniles with greater rights than the Constitution requires.’” T.D., 219 N.E.3d at 725 (quoting R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1043 (Ind. 2018)). | 3 | 3 |
Gerrick v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Daniel v. State (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 364, 368 ; [Gerrick v. State, 451 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1603-PC-581 | October 21, 2016 Page 12 of 25 1983)]. 1994Daniel v. State (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 364, 368 ; Gerrick, 451 N.E.2d at 330 . | 1 | 2 |
Vance v. Stategreen1 sentence2010However, our supreme court has held that the lack of such findings does not invalidate the order "if the record contains sufficient facts for the court to find that waiver is appropriate." Vance v. State, 640 N.E.2d 51, 57 (Ind.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Trowbridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 149 (Ind.1999). 2005Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 149 (Ind.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. State
green
2 sentences2016Daniel v. State (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 364, 368 ; [Gerrick v. State, 451 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1603-PC-581 | October 21, 2016 Page 12 of 25 1983)]. 1994Daniel v. State (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 364, 368 ; Gerrick, 451 N.E.2d at 330 . | 2 | 1994–2016 |
Wurster v. State
green
2 sentences1999As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, “[o]nly in cases in which there is such ‘flagrant imposition of the grand jurors’ will or independent judgment’ will the court find a violation of due process.” Wurster , 708 N.E.2d at 592 (quoting Averhart v. State , 470 N.E.2d 666, 679 (Ind. 1984)). 1999As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, “[o]nly in cases in which there is such ‘flagrant imposition of the grand jurors’ will or independent judgment’ will the court find a violation of due process.” Wurster, 708 N.E.2d at 592 (quoting Averhart v. State, 470 N.E.2d 666, 679 (Ind.1984)). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
DM v. State
green
1 sentence2025“If the statute is not followed, the State cannot use any statements as evidence.” Id. [31] Our Supreme Court has held that four requirements “must be satisfied before a juvenile’s statements made during a custodial interrogation can be used in the State’s case-in-chief.” D.M., 949 N.E.2d at 333-34 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
B.A. v. State
green
2 sentences2025In response to our Supreme Court’s holding in Lewis, the General Assembly codified Indiana Code Section 31-32-5-1, which governs the waiver of rights guaranteed to a juvenile, and currently provides, in relevant part: Any rights guaranteed to a child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only: ***** (2) by the child’s custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if: (A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right; (B) that person has no interest adverse to the child; (C) meaningful consult 2025“If the statute is not followed, the State cannot use any statements as evidence.” Id. [31] Our Supreme Court has held that four requirements “must be satisfied before a juvenile’s statements made during a custodial interrogation can be used in the State’s case-in-chief.” D.M., 949 N.E.2d at 333-34 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.