80 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Under the Patterson rule, “prior out-of-court statements, not under oath, were admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant was present and available for cross-examination at the time of the admission of such statements.” Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649, 651 (Ind. 1991) (citing Patterson v. State, 324 N.E.2d 482, 484 (Ind. 1975)). 2015Under the Patterson rule, “prior out-of-court statements, not under oath, were admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant was present and available for cross-examination at the time of the admission of such statements.” Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649, 651 (Ind. 1991) (citing Patterson v. State, 324 N.E.2d 482, 484 (Ind. 1975)). | 8 | 23 |
Samuels v. Stategreen2 sentences2001We soon recognized the problems inherent in this decision, however, and attempted to minimize some harmful side effects See Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125, 1180 (Ind.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 915 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 (1983) (courts should not permit "the State to put in substantive evidence of the witness-declarant's version of the facts solely through the admission of the witness' prior statement under the pretext of the Patterson rule"); Samuels v. State, 267 Ind. 676, 679 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 (1978) (condemning unjustifiable extensions of Patterson and indicating that ad 2001We soon recognized the problems inherent in this decision, however, and attempted to minimize some harmful side effects See Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125, 1180 (Ind.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 915 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 (1983) (courts should not permit "the State to put in substantive evidence of the witness-declarant's version of the facts solely through the admission of the witness' prior statement under the pretext of the Patterson rule"); Samuels v. State, 267 Ind. 676, 679 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 (1978) (condemning unjustifiable extensions of Patterson and indicating that ad | 4 | 15 |
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2001We soon recognized the problems inherent in this decision, however, and attempted to minimize some harmful side effects See Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125, 1180 (Ind.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 915 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 (1983) (courts should not permit "the State to put in substantive evidence of the witness-declarant's version of the facts solely through the admission of the witness' prior statement under the pretext of the Patterson rule"); Samuels v. State, 267 Ind. 676, 679 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 (1978) (condemning unjustifiable extensions of Patterson and indicating that ad 1991We held, in affirming the convictions, that "the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patterson rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross examination) the witness-declarant about those facts." 440 N.E.2d at 1130 . | 2 | 18 |
Watkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1996The Patterson rule was enunciated in Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975) and states that "[A] prior statement of a witness is admissible, not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence, provided the out-of-court asserter is present at trial for cross-examination.'" 446 N.E.2d at 960 , citing Smith v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (Ind.1980). 1996The Patterson rule was enunciated in Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975) and states that "[A] prior statement of a witness is admissible, not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence, provided the out-of-court asserter is present at trial for cross-examination.'" 446 N.E.2d at 960 , citing Smith v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (Ind.1980). | 2 | 13 |
Stone v. Stategreen2 sentences1991Further, in Stone v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 , this Court quoted the Som-uels language as condemning unjustifiable extensions of the Patterson rule and warned that "the use of prior statements of a trial witness by the proponent of the witness in lieu of available and direct testimony of such witness will not longer be sanctioned." 377 N.E.2d at 1375 . 1991Further, in Stone v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 , this Court quoted the Som-uels language as condemning unjustifiable extensions of the Patterson rule and warned that "the use of prior statements of a trial witness by the proponent of the witness in lieu of available and direct testimony of such witness will not longer be sanctioned." 377 N.E.2d at 1375 . | 2 | 13 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1996The Patterson rule was enunciated in Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975) and states that "[A] prior statement of a witness is admissible, not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence, provided the out-of-court asserter is present at trial for cross-examination.'" 446 N.E.2d at 960 , citing Smith v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (Ind.1980). 1996The Patterson rule was enunciated in Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975) and states that "[A] prior statement of a witness is admissible, not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence, provided the out-of-court asserter is present at trial for cross-examination.'" 446 N.E.2d at 960 , citing Smith v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (Ind.1980). | 2 | 7 |
Dh v. Jhgreen2 sentences1990Its misapplication and abuse have been noted in Samuels v. State, (1978), 267 Ind. 676, 678-79 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , (‘To the extent that it has been used to support the admission of out-of-court statements as a mere substitute for available in-court testimony, it has been misapplied.’) and in Carter v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 825, 828-31 , (‘We conclude that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Crawford to relate Irey Hughes’ post-arrest statements before Hughes acknowledged making the statements.’) and (‘under our interpretation of the Patterson rule, denied or unrecall 1990Its misapplication and abuse have been noted in Samuels v. State, (1978), 267 Ind. 676, 678-79 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , (‘To the extent that it has been used to support the admission of out-of-court statements as a mere substitute for available in-court testimony, it has been misapplied.’) and in Carter v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 825, 828-31 , (‘We conclude that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Crawford to relate Irey Hughes’ post-arrest statements before Hughes acknowledged making the statements.’) and (‘under our interpretation of the Patterson rule, denied or unrecall | 2 | 5 |
Douglass v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Douglass v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 721, 724 . 1989Douglass v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 721, 724 . | 2 | 3 |
Modesitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Under the Patterson rule, “prior out-of-court statements, not under oath, were admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant was present and available for cross-examination at the time of the admission of such statements.” Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649, 651 (Ind. 1991) (citing Patterson v. State, 324 N.E.2d 482, 484 (Ind. 1975)). 2015Under the Patterson rule, “prior out-of-court statements, not under oath, were admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant was present and available for cross-examination at the time of the admission of such statements.” Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649, 651 (Ind. 1991) (citing Patterson v. State, 324 N.E.2d 482, 484 (Ind. 1975)). | 1 | 12 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Its misapplication and abuse have been noted in Samuels v. State, (1978), 267 Ind. 676, 678-79 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , (‘To the extent that it has been used to support the admission of out-of-court statements as a mere substitute for available in-court testimony, it has been misapplied.’) and in Carter v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 825, 828-31 , (‘We conclude that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Crawford to relate Irey Hughes’ post-arrest statements before Hughes acknowledged making the statements.’) and (‘under our interpretation of the Patterson rule, denied or unrecall 1990Its misapplication and abuse have been noted in Samuels v. State, (1978), 267 Ind. 676, 678-79 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 , (‘To the extent that it has been used to support the admission of out-of-court statements as a mere substitute for available in-court testimony, it has been misapplied.’) and in Carter v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 825, 828-31 , (‘We conclude that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Crawford to relate Irey Hughes’ post-arrest statements before Hughes acknowledged making the statements.’) and (‘under our interpretation of the Patterson rule, denied or unrecall | 1 | 5 |
Flewallen v. Stategreen2 sentences1983As can be seen by reading the cases he cites, including Justice DeBruler's dissent in Flewallen [v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ], supra, the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patterson rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross-examination) the witness-declarant about those facts. 1983As can be seen by reading the cases he cites, including Justice DeBruler's dissent in Flewallen [v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ], supra, the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patterson rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross-examination) the witness-declarant about those facts. | 1 | 5 |
Keramida v. Zachmanoglougreen2 sentences1991See, eg., Keramida v. Zachmanoglou (1984), Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 769 (written psychologist's report that recounted statements of psychologist and statements made to psychologist by persons acquainted with the party admissible under the Patterson rule where psychologist and acquaintances testified and were available for cross-examination). 1991See, eg., Keramida v. Zachmanoglou (1984), Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 769 (written psychologist's report that recounted statements of psychologist and statements made to psychologist by persons acquainted with the party admissible under the Patterson rule where psychologist and acquaintances testified and were available for cross-examination). | 1 | 3 |
Foor v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Cook v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 227, 228-29 , 379 N.E.2d 965, 966 ; Moten v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 309, 312-13 , 380 N.E.2d 544, 546 ; Foor v. State, (1977), 172 Ind. App. 618, 622-23 , 360 N.E.2d 1273, 1275 ," is noteworthy. 1990Cook v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 227, 228-29 , 379 N.E.2d 965, 966 ; Moten v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 309, 312-13 , 380 N.E.2d 544, 546 ; Foor v. State, (1977), 172 Ind.App. 618, 622-23, 360 .N.E.2d 1273, 1275,” is noteworthy. | 1 | 3 |
| Drane v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Loomis v. Ameritech Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Banks v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Keller v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hendricks v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tyler v. Hartford Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2001We soon recognized the problems inherent in this decision, however, and attempted to minimize some harmful side effects See Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125, 1180 (Ind.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 915 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 (1983) (courts should not permit "the State to put in substantive evidence of the witness-declarant's version of the facts solely through the admission of the witness' prior statement under the pretext of the Patterson rule"); Samuels v. State, 267 Ind. 676, 679 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 (1978) (condemning unjustifiable extensions of Patterson and indicating that ad 1984The application of the Patterson rule was discussed by this Court in Lewis v. State, (1982) Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1125 , cert. denied, (1983) - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 . "... the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patter *724 son rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross-examination) the witness-declarant about those facts. | 7 | 1984–2001 |
Reich v. Larson
green
2 sentences2001We soon recognized the problems inherent in this decision, however, and attempted to minimize some harmful side effects See Lewis v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1125, 1180 (Ind.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 915 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 (1983) (courts should not permit "the State to put in substantive evidence of the witness-declarant's version of the facts solely through the admission of the witness' prior statement under the pretext of the Patterson rule"); Samuels v. State, 267 Ind. 676, 679 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1187 (1978) (condemning unjustifiable extensions of Patterson and indicating that ad 1992In support, the court cited Lewis v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1125 , cert. denied 461 U.S. 915 , 103 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 , where it had allowed three witnesses to testify to hearsay statements after the declarant had already testified and had been cross examined regarding the subject matter of those statements. | 7 | 1985–2001 |
Lambert v. State
green
2 sentences1990On rehearing, however, we found that such analysis and application of the Patterson rule was incomplete and we unequivocally stated: A party wishing to use hearsay evidence under the Patterson rule exeeption must elicit the necessary foundational testimony from the witness regarding the out-of-court statement and its content. 534 N.E.2d at 237 . 1990On rehearing, however, we found that such analysis and application of the Patterson rule was incomplete and we unequivocally stated: A party wishing to use hearsay evidence under the Patterson rule exeeption must elicit the necessary foundational testimony from the witness regarding the out-of-court statement and its content. 534 N.E.2d at 237 . | 6 | 1990–1993 |
Vince v. DeJohn
green
2 sentences1984The application of the Patterson rule was discussed by this Court in Lewis v. State, (1982) Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1125 , cert. denied, (1983) - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 . "... the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patter *724 son rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross-examination) the witness-declarant about those facts. 1984The application of the Patterson rule was discussed by this Court in Lewis v. State, (1982) Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1125 , cert. denied, (1983) - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1895 , 77 L.Ed.2d 284 . "... the key question in determining whether or not an abuse of the Patter *724 son rule has occurred is whether the State has submitted evidence as to the relevant factual events in the case by directly examining (and thereby making him available for cross-examination) the witness-declarant about those facts. | 6 | 1984–1992 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. 1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. | 5 | 1980–1986 |
Mata v. Aaron
green
2 sentences1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. 1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. | 5 | 1980–1986 |
Pankey v. Bordenkircher
green
2 sentences1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. 1981In Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1208 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 , 98 S.Ct. 202 , 54 L.Ed.2d 142 , and Torrence v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 202 , 328 N.E.2d 214 , we held repudiation of a prior inconsistent statement does not invalidate the Patterson rule. | 5 | 1980–1986 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1990Patterson v. State (1975), 268 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 . 1981Riddle v. State (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 958 ; Brown v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1000 ; Gutierrez v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 1207 ; Thompkins v. State (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 347 ; Buttram v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 193 , 379 N.E.2d 449 ; Stone v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Rogers v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 370 , 375 N.E.2d 1089 ; Johnson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 55 , 373 N.E.2d 169 ; Flewallen v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ; Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1209 , cert. den | 4 | 1981–1990 |
Lloyd v. State
green
2 sentences1985Lloyd v. State (1975), 166 Ind.App. 248, 256 , 335 N.E.2d 232, 237 . 1985Lloyd v. State (1975), 166 Ind.App. 248, 256 , 335 N.E.2d 232, 237 . | 4 | 1980–1985 |
Stone v. State
green
2 sentences1991He contends the Patterson rule is misapplied when invoked to support the admission of out-of-court statements “as a mere substitute for in-court testimony.” Stone v. State (1989), Ind.App., 536 N.E.2d 534, 536 . 1991He contends the Patterson rule is misapplied when invoked to support the admission of out-of-court statements “as a mere substitute for in-court testimony.” Stone v. State (1989), Ind.App., 536 N.E.2d 534, 536 . | 3 | 1989–1992 |
Cook v. State
green
2 sentences1981In Cook v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 227 , 379 N.E.2d 965 , a video taped prior inconsistent statement was admitted for substantive proof under the Patterson rule even though the witness tried to repudiate the statement by asserting he had no personal knowledge of the events in question. 1981In Cook v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 227 , 379 N.E.2d 965 , a video taped prior inconsistent statement was admitted for substantive proof under the Patterson rule even though the witness tried to repudiate the statement by asserting he had no personal knowledge of the events in question. | 3 | 1981–1990 |
Ruel v. State
green
2 sentences1989Ruel v. State (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 1274, 1277 . 1989Ruel v. State (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 1274, 1277 . | 3 | 1989–1989 |
Traver v. State
green
2 sentences1993Traver, 568 N.E.2d at 1012 . 1993Traver, 568 N.E.2d at 1012 . | 2 | 1992–1993 |
Moten v. State
green
2 sentences1990Cook v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 227, 228-29 , 379 N.E.2d 965, 966 ; Moten v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 309, 312-13 , 380 N.E.2d 544, 546 ; Foor v. State, (1977), 172 Ind.App. 618, 622-23, 360 .N.E.2d 1273, 1275,” is noteworthy. 1990Cook v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 227, 228-29 , 379 N.E.2d 965, 966 ; Moten v. State, (1978), 269 Ind. 309, 312-13 , 380 N.E.2d 544, 546 ; Foor v. State, (1977), 172 Ind.App. 618, 622-23, 360 .N.E.2d 1273, 1275,” is noteworthy. | 2 | 1983–1990 |
Jackson v. State
green
2 sentences1989Watkins v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 949, 960 ; Payne v. State (1987), Ind.App., 515 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 ; Jackson v. State (1985), Ind.App., 485 N.E.2d 144,148 . 1 Cf. Ruel v. State (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 1274 . 1989Watkins v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 949, 960 ; Payne v. State (1987), Ind.App., 515 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 ; Jackson v. State (1985), Ind.App., 485 N.E.2d 144,148 . 1 Cf. Ruel v. State (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 1274 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
| Rogers v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Brown v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Rieth-Riley Construction Company, Inc. v. McCarrell green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Buttram v. State
green
2 sentences1981Riddle v. State (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 958 ; Brown v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1000 ; Gutierrez v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 1207 ; Thompkins v. State (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 347 ; Buttram v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 193 , 379 N.E.2d 449 ; Stone v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Rogers v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 370 , 375 N.E.2d 1089 ; Johnson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 55 , 373 N.E.2d 169 ; Flewallen v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ; Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1209 , cert. den 1981Riddle v. State (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 958 ; Brown v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1000 ; Gutierrez v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 1207 ; Thompkins v. State (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 347 ; Buttram v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 193 , 379 N.E.2d 449 ; Stone v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Rogers v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 370 , 375 N.E.2d 1089 ; Johnson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 55 , 373 N.E.2d 169 ; Flewallen v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ; Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1209 , cert. den | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Williams v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Thompkins v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Riddle v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Gutierrez v. State green | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Wheeler v. State neutral | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Stewart v. State
neutral
2 sentences1981Riddle v. State (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 958 ; Brown v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1000 ; Gutierrez v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 1207 ; Thompkins v. State (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 347 ; Buttram v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 193 , 379 N.E.2d 449 ; Stone v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Rogers v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 370 , 375 N.E.2d 1089 ; Johnson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 55 , 373 N.E.2d 169 ; Flewallen v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ; Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1209 , cert. den 1981Riddle v. State (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 958 ; Brown v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1000 ; Gutierrez v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 1207 ; Thompkins v. State (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 347 ; Buttram v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 193 , 379 N.E.2d 449 ; Stone v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Rogers v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 370 , 375 N.E.2d 1089 ; Johnson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 55 , 373 N.E.2d 169 ; Flewallen v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 90 , 368 N.E.2d 239 ; Carter v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 196 , 361 N.E.2d 1209 , cert. den | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| Warren v. State green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Humphrey v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Ebersol v. Mishler green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Bernstein v. Glavin green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Timmons v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Saintignon v. State neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lambert v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Payne v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Thomas green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Balfour v. State neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| B.M.P. v. State neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Espenlaub v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Espenlaub v. Indiana neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Sartorius v. Commissioner neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.