9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trowbridge v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Trowbridge, 717 N.E.2d at 147 . | 1 | 1 |
Crystal M. Powers v. Bryan A. Blunckgreen1 sentence2019Powers v. Blunck, 109 N.E.3d 1053, 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). [11] Father argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue and that he was unduly prejudiced by the denial. | 1 | 1 |
Litchfield v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Litchfield , 824 N.E.2d at 359 ("Indiana has explicitly rejected the expectation of privacy as a test of the reasonableness of a search or seizure."). 9 Our court has reached a different conclusion when the search is a routine inventory search. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dunngreen2 sentences2014See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300-03 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 . 2014See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300-03 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 . | 1 | 1 |
Keesling v. Winsteadgreen1 sentence2012Keesling v. Winstead, 858 N.E.2d 996, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Id. at 1101-02. 2011Id. at 1101-02. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Troyer v. Troyer
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children
green
1 sentence2018Office of Family & Children , 841 N.E.2d 615 , 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. [10] Whether good cause existed is a fact-specific inquiry that requires us to review the circumstances at the time of the motion and the reasons presented to the trial court. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hunter v. State
green
1 sentence1998Hunter rejected the plaintiff's broad and generalized claim that "under Article 1, § 18 of the Indiana Constitution, all youths under the age of twenty-one years must be confined in a separate facility." Hunter, 676 N.E.2d at 16 . 20 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.