9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sloan v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Prater argues that it applies to persons sentenced after December 31, 2015. [8] When interpreting a statute, the overarching principle is to first decide “whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.” Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind.2011). 2015Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind.2010). [11] The overarching principle in statutory interpretation is to first decide “whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.” Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind.2011) (quoting Rheem Mfg. | 4 | 4 |
Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.green2 sentences2011But the overarching principle in statutory interpretation is to first decide "whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question." Rheem Mf'g Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941, 947 (Ind.2001). 2011But the overarching principle in statutory interpretation is to first decide “whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.” Rheem Mfg Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941, 947 (Ind.2001). | 4 | 4 |
Heagy v. Keangreen2 sentences2012Heagy v. Kean, 864 N.E.2d 383, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 2012Heagy v. Kean, 864 N.E.2d 383, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
In re Conditional Admission of Bar Applicant No. E03424green1 sentence2019See, e.g. , Buncich , 51 N.E.3d at 141 . | 1 | 1 |
Gardiner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind. 2010). [11] The overarching principle in statutory interpretation is to first decide “whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.” Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind. 2011) (quoting Rheem Mfg. 2015Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind.2010). [11] The overarching principle in statutory interpretation is to first decide “whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.” Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind.2011) (quoting Rheem Mfg. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keyser v. State
green
1 sentence2008In this regard, the overarching principle, as stated in Keyser , is the same: "Since a criminal defendant is the primary individual who could benefit from the bribing or absence of a witness who might testify against him, the inference is strong that he has procured these acts when evidence of them is introduced at his trial." 312 N.E.2d at 924 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.