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.
10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2015Hawkins v. Jenkins, 374 N.E.2d 496, 500 (Ind. 1978). [9] Here, the trial court concluded that Evans’ violation of Rules 2 and 10 alone supported the revocation of his parole. | 1 | 1 |
Hubbard v. Hubbardgreen1 sentence2013The Evans cannot convert an interlocutory order into a final judgment for purposes of invoking this court’s jurisdiction 4 simply by filing a pleading entitled “Motion to Correct Error.” Cf. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d at 1221 (treating a pleading captioned “motion to reconsider” as a motion to correct error because it was filed after entry of a final judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Anglemyer v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007) (explaining that relative weight assigned to aggravators and mitigators is not subject to appellate review), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . 3 methamphetamine in this case does not appear to be particularly egregious when compared to the actions required to sustain a conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Anglemyer v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 491 (Ind. 2007) (explaining that relative weight assigned to aggravators and mitigators is not subject to appellate review), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 . 3 methamphetamine in this case does not appear to be particularly egregious when compared to the actions required to sustain a conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Nunley v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Nunley v. State, 916 N.E.2d 712, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. & MONSANTO CO.green2 sentences1999See Baker, 637 N.E.2d at 1273 . 1999See Baker, 637 N.E.2d at 1273 . | 1 | 1 |
Pillow v. Stategreen1 sentence1994"An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant." Moffatt v. State (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 971, 974 . - "[When it is apparent that the 'sole purpose of calling the witness was to wield the evidential harpoon, deliberately calculated by counsel to prejudice the jury against the defendant and his defense, an admonishment cannot cure the error and a mistrial should be declared." Pillow v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 (quoting White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64, 76 , 272 N.E.2d 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. State
green
2 sentences1994"An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant." Moffatt v. State (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 971, 974 . - "[When it is apparent that the 'sole purpose of calling the witness was to wield the evidential harpoon, deliberately calculated by counsel to prejudice the jury against the defendant and his defense, an admonishment cannot cure the error and a mistrial should be declared." Pillow v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 (quoting White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64, 76 , 272 N.E.2d 3 1994"An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant." Moffatt v. State (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 971, 974 . - "[When it is apparent that the 'sole purpose of calling the witness was to wield the evidential harpoon, deliberately calculated by counsel to prejudice the jury against the defendant and his defense, an admonishment cannot cure the error and a mistrial should be declared." Pillow v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 (quoting White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64, 76 , 272 N.E.2d 3 | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Moffatt v. State
green
2 sentences1994Moffatt v. State (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 971 ; White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N.E.2d 312 . 1994"An evidentiary harpoon is the placing of inadmissible evidence before the jury with the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant." Moffatt v. State (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 971, 974 . - "[When it is apparent that the 'sole purpose of calling the witness was to wield the evidential harpoon, deliberately calculated by counsel to prejudice the jury against the defendant and his defense, an admonishment cannot cure the error and a mistrial should be declared." Pillow v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 (quoting White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64, 76 , 272 N.E.2d 3 | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence2020Id. [21] We agree with the trial court’s reasoning and reject Wilderness’s contention that Evans is “critically distinguishable” from the present case because here Patricia, and not Junior, “was the alleged victim of the [prior] physical bad acts.” Appellant’s Br. at 20-21. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams
green
2 sentences2007Like its argument in Random Antics, Green Tree directs us to the holding in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 798-99 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), for the proposition that “a mortgagee has a legally protected property interest and is entitled to notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of a pending tax sale.” Green Tree asserts that its name and address were reasonably ascertainable from the mortgage that was recorded in Howard County. 2007Like its argument in Random Antics, Green Tree directs us to the holding in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 798-99 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), for the proposition that “a mortgagee has a legally protected property interest and is entitled to notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of a pending tax sale.” Green Tree asserts that its name and address were reasonably ascertainable from the mortgage that was recorded in Howard County. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp.
green
1 sentence1989Id. at 976 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.