force rule (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

force rule in Indiana

8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2020 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Capital Crossing Bankgreen
indctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Capital Crossing Bank, 887 N.E.2d 97, 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding party waived claim under Trial Rule 12(B)(8) by not timely moving to dismiss the complaint or asserting the defense in its answer).

11
Kellett v. Stategreen
indctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017As to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1702-CR-282 | July 19, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Theft instead of Robbery, this Court has held with respect to the admissibility of evidence that “a criminal defendant may not stipulate her way out of the full evidentiary force of the case to be presented against her.” Kellett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 975, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

11
Graham v. Stategreen
ind · 2009 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Not all non-passive actions fulfill the force requirement of 3 the statute, id. at 724 ; yet, the amount of force need not rise to the level of “mayhem.” Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009).

11
Johnson v. Stategreen
indctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008However, in Johnson v. State, we noted that while discussing political expression, our Supreme Court cited Spangler and provided that “ ‘an individual who directs strength, power or violence towards police officers or who makes a threatening gesture or movement in their direction, may properly be charged with [resisting law enforcement].’ ” 833 N.E.2d 516, 519 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 , 963 n. 14 (Ind.1993) (emphasis in original)).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Spangler v. State green
ind · 1993
2 sentences

2014Not all non-passive actions fulfill the force requirement of 3 the statute, id. at 724 ; yet, the amount of force need not rise to the level of “mayhem.” Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009).

2008Our Supreme Court interpreted the force requirement in Spangler , holding that the forcible element of the crime requires “some form of violent action toward another.” Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724 .

22008–2014
Price v. State green
ind · 1993
1 sentence

2008However, in Johnson v. State, we noted that while discussing political expression, our Supreme Court cited Spangler and provided that “ ‘an individual who directs strength, power or violence towards police officers or who makes a threatening gesture or movement in their direction, may properly be charged with [resisting law enforcement].’ ” 833 N.E.2d 516, 519 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 , 963 n. 14 (Ind.1993) (emphasis in original)).

12008–2008
Ernest S. Borum v. United States green
cadc · 1969
1 sentence

1990Golden first relies on Borum v. United States (D.C.Cir.1967), 409 F.2d 433 , cert. denied (1969), 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 .

11990–1990
Justice v. United States green
scotus · 1969
1 sentence

1990Golden first relies on Borum v. United States (D.C.Cir.1967), 409 F.2d 433 , cert. denied (1969), 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 .

11990–1990
Quilliam v. Union Trust Co. neutral
ind · 1924
2 sentences

1980“The rule that words of survivorship will be construed as relating to a death preceding the death of the testator, unless otherwise clearly expressed, has been recognized so long by this court that it cannot be questioned, and such rule has been applied in so many cases where the language used was of similar effect to that used in the case at bar that such construction has the force of a rule of property, and should not be disturbed.” Id. 142 N.E. at 218 .

1980“The rule that words of survivorship will be construed as relating to a death preceding the death of the testator, unless otherwise clearly expressed, has been recognized so long by this court that it cannot be questioned, and such rule has been applied in so many cases where the language used was of similar effect to that used in the case at bar that such construction has the force of a rule of property, and should not be disturbed.” Id. 142 N.E. at 218 .

11980–1980
Heilman v. Heilman green
ind · 1891
2 sentences

1936The rule that words of survivor-ship will be construed as relating to a death preceding the death of the testator, unless otherwise clearly expressed, has been recognized so long by this court that it cannot be questioned, and such rule has been applied in so many cases where the language used was of similar effect to that used in the case at bar, that such construction has the force of a rule of property and should not be disturbed.” Among the many cases where the language of the will was quite analogous to the language contained in the will of Catherine Clarke, and where our Supreme Court ap

1936The rule that words of survivor-ship will be construed as relating to a death preceding the death of the testator, unless otherwise clearly expressed, has been recognized so long by this court that it cannot be questioned, and such rule has been applied in so many cases where the language used was of similar effect to that used in the case at bar, that such construction has the force of a rule of property and should not be disturbed.” Among the many cases where the language of the will was quite analogous to the language contained in the will of Catherine Clarke, and where our Supreme Court ap

11936–1936
Wright v. Charley green
ind · 1891
1 sentence

1936The rule that words of survivor-ship will be construed as relating to a death preceding the death of the testator, unless otherwise clearly expressed, has been recognized so long by this court that it cannot be questioned, and such rule has been applied in so many cases where the language used was of similar effect to that used in the case at bar, that such construction has the force of a rule of property and should not be disturbed.” Among the many cases where the language of the will was quite analogous to the language contained in the will of Catherine Clarke, and where our Supreme Court ap

11936–1936
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stegemeier green
ind · 1889
1 sentence

1891We do not think this case is governed by the case of Pennsylvania Co. v. Stegemeier, 118 Ind. 305 , and similar cases, where the company is required to close a gate upon the approach of trains, and thus .cut off the approach of persons desiring to cross.

11891–1891

Where else courts name it

TX 82 (1883–2025) CA 82 (1859–2026) NY 36 (1875–2024) PA 20 (1857–2023) MA 19 (1905–2026) IL 15 (1874–2014) OH 13 (1924–2026) FL 13 (1975–2012) WA 13 (1911–2021) KS 13 (1892–2023) AL 8 (1909–2010) WI 8 (1876–2025) IN 8 (1891–2020) OK 8 (1913–2023) MO 7 (1902–2012) GA 6 (1927–1972) MI 6 (1925–2016) CT 5 (1907–2017) AR 5 (1912–1948) NC 5 (1910–1976) IA 5 (1917–1988) NJ 5 (1891–2018) ME 5 (1935–1981) MD 5 (1964–2022) LA 5 (1967–2024) NE 5 (1904–2003) DC 4 (1987–2021) MT 4 (1928–2025) MN 4 (1905–1985) SC 4 (1880–1934) OR 4 (1913–2024) KY 4 (1923–1987) NV 4 (1867–2011) UT 3 (1947–2017) AZ 3 (1928–1983) TN 3 (1928–1971) VA 3 (1941–2025) CO 3 (1894–1962) VT 3 (1887–1933) NM 2 (1933–1957) WV 2 (1888–1903) ID 2 (1937–2021) SD 2 (1988–2006) MS 2 (1874–2021) ND 2 (1900–1970) WY 2 (1937–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check