9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklingreen2 sentences2015See Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 358-59 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 ; Part II., supra. To the extent the Gochenours rest their claim on the issue of vegetation control, however, we agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to CSXT. 22 Federal regulations dictate that “[v]egetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to [the] roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not ... [o]bstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals.... ” 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (b). 2015See Shanklin, 529 U.S. at 358-59 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 ; Part II., supra. To the extent the Gochenours rest their claim on the issue of vegetation control, however, we agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to CSXT. 22 Federal regulations dictate that “[v]egetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to [the] roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not ... [o]bstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals.... ” 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (b). | 1 | 1 |
Whitener v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Furthermore, we *543 "will not lightly speculate as to what may or may not have been an advantageous trial strategy as counsel should be given deference in choosing a trial strategy which, at the time and under the cireum-stances, seems best." Whitener v. State, 696 N.E.2d 40, 42 (Ind.1998.) Here, Ba-delle has failed to substantiate any error, by either Trial Counsel or Appellate Counsel, which would convinee this Court that he received an inadequate defense. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See Moore, 401 N.E.2d at 677 (court abused its discretion in denying pauper counsel when no inquiry was made as to defendant's actual income or assets or the amount of any liabilities). | 1 | 1 |
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1988See also Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman (1979) 1st Dist., 180 Ind. App. 33 , 388 N.E.2d 541 . 1988See also Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman (1979) 1st Dist., 180 Ind.App. 33 , 388 N.E.2d 541 . | 1 | 1 |
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1988See also Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman (1979) 1st Dist., 180 Ind. App. 33 , 388 N.E.2d 541 . 1988See also Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman (1979) 1st Dist., 180 Ind.App. 33 , 388 N.E.2d 541 . | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1977In that case, the appellant had been advised that “* * * if she didn’t have any money for an attorney the State would furnish her an attorney.” We held that to be insufficient under the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 478, 479 , because it did not inform her that she had the right to the presence of an attorney during the interrogation. 1977In that case, the appellant had been advised that "* * * if she didn't have any money for an attorney the state would furnish her an attorney." We held that to be insufficient under the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 478, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , because it did not inform her that she had the right to the presence of an attorney during the interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Inasmuch as the plaintiff's entire case was built around proof of an inadequate warning, a negligence concept, the theoretical distinction between negligence and implied warranty may not be exploited to obviate the policy reasons for the exclusionary rule. 245 N.W.2d at 58 . 1979Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s entire case was built around proof of an inadequate warning, a negligence concept, . . . the theoretical distinction between negligence and implied warranty may not be exploited to obviate the policy reasons for the exclusionary rule. 245 N.W.2d at 58 . | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Hampton v. State
green
1 sentence2013See Vaughan v. 3 The Court held: “[W]hen the trial court determines that the defendant’s conduct required for the commission of a charged offense, the actus reus, is established exclusively by circumstantial evidence, the jury should be instructed as follows: In determining whether the guilt of the accused is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should require that the proof be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.” Hampton, 961 N.E.2d at 491 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Denu v. Western Gear Corp.
green
1 sentence1997In Denu v. Western Gear Corp., 581 F.Supp. 7 (S.D.Ind.1983), 3 a case similar to the instant case, an employee was injured while cleaning a reconditioned printing press. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McGill v. MUDDY FORK OF SILVER CREEK, ETC.
green
1 sentence1988App., 454 N.E.2d 1268 ; McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy District (1977) 1st Dist., 175 Ind. App. 48 , 370 N.E.2d 365 . [6] Cases which adhere to the inadequate warning as defect reasoning also rely in part upon a Restatement comment which would create a presumption that "[w]here warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded...." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment j (1965). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Rlg v. Tle
green
1 sentence1988App., 454 N.E.2d 1268 ; McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy District (1977) 1st Dist., 175 Ind. App. 48 , 370 N.E.2d 365 . [6] Cases which adhere to the inadequate warning as defect reasoning also rely in part upon a Restatement comment which would create a presumption that "[w]here warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded...." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment j (1965). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy District
green
1 sentence1988App., 454 N.E.2d 1268 ; McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy District (1977) 1st Dist., 175 Ind. App. 48 , 370 N.E.2d 365 . [6] Cases which adhere to the inadequate warning as defect reasoning also rely in part upon a Restatement comment which would create a presumption that "[w]here warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded...." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment j (1965). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Goodloe v. State
green
2 sentences1977The defendant relied upon Goodloe v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 270 , 252 N.E.2d 788 , wherein we ordered a new trial because of the admission of statements made following an inadequate warning. 1977The defendant relied upon Goodloe v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 270 , 252 N.E.2d 788 , wherein we ordered a new trial because of the admission of statements made following an inadequate warning. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.