9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Litchfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2016When evaluating the reasonableness of a search or seizure, we consider the following non-exclusive factors: “1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.” 1 Id. (quoting Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005)). 2009Litchfield, 824 NE2d at 361 . | 1 | 5 |
John Barnhart v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018Barnhart v. State, 15 N.E.3d 138, 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See also Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1153 (Ind. 2005) (addressing the “independent interpretation and application” of Indiana’s search and seizure clause). [14] Shreve does not challenge the legality of the initial stop for impeding the flow of traffic, nor could he. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016When evaluating the reasonableness of a search or seizure, we consider the following non-exclusive factors: “1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.” 1 Id. (quoting Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Webster v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Daugherty v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 783 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
GKN Co. v. Magness
green
2 sentences2002The non-exclusive factors that were weighed and balanced are as follows: "(1) right to discharge; (2) mode of payment; (8) supplying tools or equipment; (4) belief of the parties in the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (5) control over the means used in the results reached; (6) length of employment; and, (7) establishment of the work boundaries." Id. at 402 . 2002The non-exclusive factors that were weighed and balanced are as follows: "(1) right to discharge; (2) mode of payment; (3) supplying tools or equipment; (4) belief of the parties in the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (5) control over the means used in the results reached; (6) length of employment; and, (7) establishment of the work boundaries." Id. at 402 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.