Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hollowell v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“Failure to present a cogent argument constitutes waiver of that issue for appellate review.” Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). [4] Here, Caudle has failed to present a cogent argument and therefore has waived appellate review. 2012See Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (“[f]ailure to present a cogent argument constitutes a waiver of that issue for appellate review.”). | 4 | 4 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that failure to present a cogent argument constitutes waiver of the issue for appellate review), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Abel v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Jackson v. State, 996 N.E.2d 378 , 383 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n.1 (Ind. 2002) (concluding state constitutional claim waived where defendant presented no authority or independent analysis 4 Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus that the evidence collected as a result of the stop was properly admitted at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Dorian Gray Jackson v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014See Jackson v. State, 996 N.E.2d 378 , 383 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Abel v. State, 773 N.E.2d 276 , 278 n.1 (Ind. 2002) (concluding state constitutional claim waived where defendant presented no authority or independent analysis 4 Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus that the evidence collected as a result of the stop was properly admitted at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Matheney v. Indianagreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883, 907 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1046 , 143 L.Ed.2d 53 (1999); Shaw v. State, 595 N.E.2d 743, 746 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883, 907 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1046 , 143 L.Ed.2d 53 (1999); Shaw v. State, 595 N.E.2d 743, 746 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Matheney v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883, 907 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1046 , 143 L.Ed.2d 53 (1999); Shaw v. State, 595 N.E.2d 743, 746 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 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. State
green
1 sentence2005Smith v. State, 802 N.E.2d 948 , 955 n. 7 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |