second alleged error (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

second alleged error in Indiana

10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1871–1979 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Elmore v. Statered
ind · 1978 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
1 sentence

1979See Elmore, supra. Inasmuch as we have concluded error in the double jeopardy issue, we need not pass on the State’s second alleged error.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Roark, Holcomb v. State green
ind · 1955
2 sentences

1973Appellant citing Roark v. State (1956), 234 Ind. 615 , 130 N.E.2d 326 , reasons that since multiple defendants in criminal prosecutions are not entitled to consolidate indictments charging different offenses, the State, by implication, is not entitled to consolidation of different charges against a single defendant.

1973Appellant citing Roark v. State (1956), 234 Ind. 615 , 130 N.E.2d 326 , reasons that since multiple defendants in criminal prosecutions are not entitled to consolidate indictments charging different offenses, the State, by implication, is not entitled to consolidation of different charges against a single defendant.

11973–1973
Butt v. Iffert neutral
ind · 1909
2 sentences

1940Butt v. Iffert (1909), 171 Ind. 554, 555 , 86 N. E. 961 . *7 The second alleged error presented by appellant is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s petition to make the complaint more specific.

1940Butt v. Iffert (1909), 171 Ind. 554, 555 , 86 N. E. 961 . *7 The second alleged error presented by appellant is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s petition to make the complaint more specific.

11940–1940
Ault v. Clark green
indctapp · 1916
2 sentences

1935Ault v. Clark (1916), 62 Ind. App. 55 , 112 N. E. 843 ; White et al. v. State of Indiana, ex rel.

1935Ault v. Clark (1916), 62 Ind. App. 55 , 112 N. E. 843 ; White et al. v. State of Indiana, ex rel.

11935–1935
Briles v. State neutral
ind · 1927
2 sentences

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

11930–1930
Scott v. State green
ind · 1911
2 sentences

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

11930–1930
Ward v. State neutral
ind · 1913
2 sentences

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

11930–1930
White v. State neutral
ind · 1915
2 sentences

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

1930See clause 5, Rule 22, Supreme Court; Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382 , 96 N. E. 125 ; Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524 , 101 N. E. 809 ; White v. State (1915), 182 Ind. 686 , 107 N. E. 674 ; Briles v. State (1927), 198 Ind. 689 , 154 N. E. 659 .

11930–1930
Robinson v. State green
ind · 1912
2 sentences

1916Robinson v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 263 , 97 N. E. 929 ; Stiles v. Hasler (1914), 56 Ind. App. 88 , 104 N. E. 878 ; Indianapolis, etc., R.

1916Robinson v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 263 , 97 N. E. 929 ; Stiles v. Hasler (1914), 56 Ind. App. 88 , 104 N. E. 878 ; Indianapolis, etc., R.

11916–1916
Stiles v. Hasler green
indctapp · 1914
2 sentences

1916Robinson v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 263 , 97 N. E. 929 ; Stiles v. Hasler (1914), 56 Ind. App. 88 , 104 N. E. 878 ; Indianapolis, etc., R.

1916Robinson v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 263 , 97 N. E. 929 ; Stiles v. Hasler (1914), 56 Ind. App. 88 , 104 N. E. 878 ; Indianapolis, etc., R.

11916–1916
Levy v. Chittenden neutral
ind · 1889
1 sentence

1890It does not become necessary to consider the second alleged error, but see Levy v. Chittenden, 120 Ind. 37 .

11890–1890
Potter v. Earnest neutral
ind · 1873
1 sentence

1880Potter v. Earnest, 45 Ind. 416 ; McCarnan v. Cochran, 57 Ind. 166 ; and Smith v. Little, 67 Ind. 549 .

11880–1880
McCarnan v. Cochran green
ind · 1877
1 sentence

1880Potter v. Earnest, 45 Ind. 416 ; McCarnan v. Cochran, 57 Ind. 166 ; and Smith v. Little, 67 Ind. 549 .

11880–1880
Smith v. Little neutral
ind · 1879
1 sentence

1880Potter v. Earnest, 45 Ind. 416 ; McCarnan v. Cochran, 57 Ind. 166 ; and Smith v. Little, 67 Ind. 549 .

11880–1880
Adamson v. Rose neutral
ind · 1868
1 sentence

1879It is said that the “ motion in arrest of judgment reaches auy defect in the pleadings not cured by the verdict or the statute of amendments, or waived by failing to demur.” Adamson v. Rose, 30 Ind. 380 .

11879–1879
Engler v. Collins neutral
ind · 1861
1 sentence

1871If this paragraph sets out the facts with sufficient particularity (see Engler v. Collins, 16 Ind. 189 ) in other respects, it fails to show when the amount was paid.

11871–1871

Where else courts name it

IN 10 (1871–1979) CA 6 (1928–2024) IL 5 (1967–2016) LA 4 (1940–2000) FL 3 (1970–2017) MI 3 (1966–2002) NC 2 (2021–2021) OH 2 (2007–2025) TX 2 (1878–2026) NY 2 (1962–2021) MS 2 (1871–1947) OR 2 (1936–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check