8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gill v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Gill v. State, 730 N.E.2d 709, 711 (Ind. 2000) (“a defendant may not argue one ground for objection at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See id. (holding that a claim of error asserting that evidence was unlawfully seized, without more, does not constitute fundamental error). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2014Still, ”[w]e may affirm the trial court on any legal theory supported by the factual findings, even if the trial court used a different legal theory.” H.H. v. A.A., 3 N.E.3d 30, 33 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923 (Ind.1998)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
H.H. v. A.A.green1 sentence2014Still, ”[w]e may affirm the trial court on any legal theory supported by the factual findings, even if the trial court used a different legal theory.” H.H. v. A.A., 3 N.E.3d 30, 33 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923 (Ind.1998)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2012As other states have held, and we agree, defendant’s Roper and Graham analysis is flawed because “Roper expressly and Graham implicitly recognize that life without parole is not cruel and unusual punishment for a minor who is convicted of a homicide.” Missouri v. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d 369 , 376–77 (Mo. 2010). 2012As other states have held, and we agree, defendant’s Roper and Graham analysis is flawed because “Roper expressly and Graham implicitly recognize that life without parole is not cruel and unusual punishment for a minor who is convicted of a homicide.” Missouri v. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d 369, 376-77 (Mo.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Agee v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See id. (prosecutor’s reference to the decedent as “the victim” not prejudicial because it was inadvertent and unlikely to affect the jury’s perception of the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Bland v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
David Holbert v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Graham v. Connor
green
2 sentences2017Objective reasonableness. turns on the “facts and circumstances of each particular *919 case.” Id. at 2473 (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 .) Also; as Gray observes, the Graham “reasonableness standard” has been examined in Indiana in non-tort cases; that is, it has had application where a criminal, defendant has raised as a defense that his non-compliance with an officer was in response to the officer acting unlawfully. 2017Objective reasonableness. turns on the “facts and circumstances of each particular *919 case.” Id. at 2473 (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 .) Also; as Gray observes, the Graham “reasonableness standard” has been examined in Indiana in non-tort cases; that is, it has had application where a criminal, defendant has raised as a defense that his non-compliance with an officer was in response to the officer acting unlawfully. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kingsley v. Hendrickson
green
2 sentences2017More recently, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466 , 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (June 22, 2016), the Court clarified that the Graham standard of objective reasonableness is not limited to circumstances where a free citizen is being taken into custody. “[T]o prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show , . that the officers’ use of that force was .objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 2470. 2017More recently, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466 , 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (June 22, 2016), the Court clarified that the Graham standard of objective reasonableness is not limited to circumstances where a free citizen is being taken into custody. “[T]o prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show , . that the officers’ use of that force was .objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 2470. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Roper v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2012As Justice Zel Fischer wrote, In Roper , the Court responded to the argument that the possibility of the death penalty was necessary to deter minors from committing homicides by noting that the punishment of life without parole is a severe enough sanction to serve as deterrence. 543 U.S. at 572 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 . 2012As Justice Zel Fischer wrote, In Roper , the Court responded to the argument that the possibility of the death penalty was necessary to deter minors from committing homicides by noting that the punishment of life without parole is a severe enough sanction to serve as deterrence. 543 U.S. at 572 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley, Treasurer
neutral
2 sentences1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
National Mutual Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.
neutral
2 sentences1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
cluster 282907
green
1 sentence1975As stated in 1 Harvey, Indiana Practice, at 607: “A motion for dismissal and a motion for summary judgment reach essentially the same issue, and are tending to become convertible devices. . . .” See also Schwartz v. Compagnie General Transatlantique (1968 C.A. 2nd Cir.), 405 F.2d 270 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Indianapolis Water Co. v. Nulte
neutral
1 sentence1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
De Hart v. Haun
green
1 sentence1975Indianapolis *511 Water Co. v. Nulte (1890), 126 Ind. 378 , 26 N.E. 72 ; Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley (1938), 105 Ind. App. 502 , 15 N.E.2d 758 ; National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1963), 136 Ind. App. 35 , 187 N.E.2d 575 . 1 All parties concede and agree that Graham’s motion for summary judgment should be treated by this court as a TR. 12(B) (6) motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.