10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1892–1981 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowen v. State
green
2 sentences1962This definition is quoted with approval in Bowen v. The State (1886), 108 Ind. 411, 414 , 9 N. E. 378 ; Galvin v. The State ex rel. 1962This definition is quoted with approval in Bowen v. The State (1886), 108 Ind. 411, 414 , 9 N. E. 378 ; Galvin v. The State ex rel. | 2 | 1944–1962 |
Bowen v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zon. App. in Marion Cty.
green
2 sentences1981While courts may not take judicial notice of administrative rules and regulations that are not of statewide effect, Bowen v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals in Marion County, Division III, (1974) 161 Ind.App. 522 , 317 N.E.2d 193 , both parties agree the Bill has some vitality as a regulation and our disposition of Issue II on its merits allows us to assume the same. 5 . 1981While courts may not take judicial notice of administrative rules and regulations that are not of statewide effect, Bowen v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals in Marion County, Division III, (1974) 161 Ind.App. 522 , 317 N.E.2d 193 , both parties agree the Bill has some vitality as a regulation and our disposition of Issue II on its merits allows us to assume the same. 5 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Dearing v. State
green
2 sentences1970Dearing v. State (1951) 229 Ind. 131 , 95 N. E. 2d 832 . *670 Clearly here either no such inquiry was made or no record was made at the time of such inquiry as required by Supreme Court Rule 1-11 (now Criminal Rule 10). 1970Dearing v. State (1951) 229 Ind. 131 , 95 N. E. 2d 832 . *670 Clearly here either no such inquiry was made or no record was made at the time of such inquiry as required by Supreme Court Rule 1-11 (now Criminal Rule 10). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Inter-State Motor Freight System v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences1967(See: Inter-State Motor Freight System v. Morgan (1943), 113 Ind. App. 374 , 47 N. E. 2d 326 .) However, the above quoted part of the original opinion expresses our opinion in the cause presently before us. 1967(See: Inter-State Motor Freight System v. Morgan (1943), 113 Ind. App. 374 , 47 N. E. 2d 326 .) However, the above quoted part of the original opinion expresses our opinion in the cause presently before us. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State Ex Rel. Conner v. Pritchard, Judge
neutral
2 sentences1962Conner v. Pritchard, Judge (1944), 115 Ind. App. 55, at 60 , 54 N. E. 2d 283 , made the following statement: “A bill of exception has been defined as ‘a formal statement, in writing, of exceptions taken to the opinion, decision or direction of a judge, delivered during the trial of a cause, setting forth the proceedings on the trial, the opinion given, and the exception taken thereto, and sealed by the judge in testimony of its correctness.’ (Our emphasis.) See Works’ Practice, Vol. 2, §2071, p. 615. 1962Conner v. Pritchard, Judge (1944), 115 Ind. App. 55, at 60 , 54 N. E. 2d 283 , made the following statement: “A bill of exception has been defined as ‘a formal statement, in writing, of exceptions taken to the opinion, decision or direction of a judge, delivered during the trial of a cause, setting forth the proceedings on the trial, the opinion given, and the exception taken thereto, and sealed by the judge in testimony of its correctness.’ (Our emphasis.) See Works’ Practice, Vol. 2, §2071, p. 615. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Lesueur v. State
green
2 sentences1915Lesueur v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 448 , 95 N. E. 239 . 1915Lesueur v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 448 , 95 N. E. 239 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Shoffner v. State
green
1 sentence1901The cases of Shoffner v. State, 93 Ind. 519 , and Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54 , cited by appellant, are in harmony with this view. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Billings v. Tile State
green
1 sentence1901The cases of Shoffner v. State, 93 Ind. 519 , and Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54 , cited by appellant, are in harmony with this view. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Gish v. Gish
green
1 sentence1895Gish v. Gish, 7 Ind. App. 104 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Wagoner v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1894The longhand manuscript of the official reporter is embodied in a proper bill of exception, in exact compliance with the rule established in the case of Wagoner v. Wilson, 108 Ind. 210 , and the cases following it. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Sample v. Carroll
neutral
1 sentence1892Sample v. Carroll, 132 Ind. 496 ; Ohio, etc., R. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.