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 1993–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Thus, Price’s claim of double jeopardy in this regard fails. [17] In Richardson, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that two or more offenses constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes “if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to obtain convictions, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Frazier v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1257, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind. 1999)). 2018“Whether convictions violate double jeopardy is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id. 5 As noted supra, the State relied upon evidence of two acts occurring during the initial sexual encounter between Price and C.D. as establishing the charges set out in Counts I and II. | 1 | 1 |
Maurice Frazier v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018Thus, Price’s claim of double jeopardy in this regard fails. [17] In Richardson, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that two or more offenses constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes “if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to obtain convictions, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Frazier v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1257, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Leslie Ann Grider v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017The trial Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2010 | March 22, 2017 Page 6 of 7 court was within its sound discretion to credit Douthit’s testimony as to the value of his truck. [16] While Price correctly points out that plea agreements are strictly construed against the State, Grider v. State, 976 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving Price’s plea agreement the only construction it reasonably bears: that Price agreed to pay Douthit restitution in an amount to be determined as would reflect his actual loss, notw | 1 | 1 |
Value World Inc. of Indiana v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen1 sentence2013See Value World, 927 N.E.2d at 948 . | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Wabash Valley Human Services, Inc.green1 sentence2013"It is well established in Indiana that in order to collect [unemployment compensation] benefits ... the claimant must be unemployed." Pope v. Wabash Valley Human Servs., Inc., 500 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Owen v. Sheltongreen1 sentence2008See Owen, 277 S.E.2d at 192 (“The price of a violation of the duty to disclose is forfeiture of the broker’s right to compensation. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind.1993). 3 . 2007See Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind.1993). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Whittington v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In fact, our supreme court later clarified that portions of the Price defendant’s tirade were not political in Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind.1996). 2006In fact, our supreme court later clarified that portions of the Price defendant's tirade were not political in Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1993See Osborne, 495 U.S. at 112-14 , 110 S.Ct. at 1697-99 . 1993See Osborne, 495 U.S. at 112-14 , 110 S.Ct. at 1697-99 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morton v. Moss
green
2 sentences2009In support, Mother relies upon Morton v. Moss, 694 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), for the proposition that a trial court's refusal to rule on an unopposed motion indicates that the court has implicitly denied said motion. 694 N.E.2d at 1151 . 2009In support, Mother relies upon Morton v. Moss, 694 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), for the proposition that a trial court's refusal to rule on an unopposed motion indicates that the court has implicitly denied said motion. 694 N.E.2d at 1151 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Borsuk v. Town of St. John
green
2 sentences2006John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind.2005)], both of which are cited above. 2006John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind.2005) ], both of which are cited above. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Baldwin v. Reagan
green
1 sentence2000The “search and seizure” issue raised in Price’s motion to suppress was discussed by our supreme court in Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332 (Ind.1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.