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 1990–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Page v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Page v. State, 878 N.E.2d 404, 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Moore, 869 N.E.2d at 492 . | 1 | 1 |
Garcia-Torres v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1406-CR-273 | March 18, 2015 Page 6 of 13 [12] Voluntariness is a question of fact determined from the totality of circumstances.3 Garcia-Torres v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1229, 1237 (Ind. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. at 577 n.4 (concluding that, where prosecution witness offered no character reputation or opinion testimony, she could not be cross-examined as to specific acts).2 Nor was Ball’s character an essential element of Green’s claim of self-defense. 2012See id. (victim’s character is not an essential element of claim of self-defense). | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Jordan v. State, 502 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind.1987) (stating "[i]n light of usual business practice and the facts presented here, it seems clear that [the defendant's] `completion' of the instrument by acknowledging receipt and his `presentment' of the completed instrument were preconditions for actually leaving the premises with the goods"). | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Sturma v. State, 683 N.E.2d 606, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Moss v. State, 165 Ind.App. 502, 511-12 , 335 N.E.2d 633, 634 (1975), wpon rehearing. | 1 | 1 |
Sturma v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Sturma v. State, 683 N.E.2d 606, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Moss v. State, 165 Ind.App. 502, 511-12 , 335 N.E.2d 633, 634 (1975), wpon rehearing. | 1 | 1 |
Langley v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Langley v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538, 545 (where the defense of waiver is raised, a petitioner must present some substantial basis which would satisfactorily rebut the waiver defense; one basis, if adequately proved, would be ineffective assistance of counsel). 3 . 1990Langley v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538, 545 (where the defense of waiver is raised, a petitioner must present some substantial basis which would satisfactorily rebut the waiver defense; one basis, if adequately proved, would be ineffective assistance of counsel). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lasliegreen2 sentences1990See State v. Laslie (1978) 178 Ind.App. 107 , 381 N.E.2d 529, 530 (this Court should not require a pro se motion to conform with exactitude to that which would be expected of experienced legal counsel). 1990See State v. Laslie (1978) 178 Ind.App. 107 , 381 N.E.2d 529, 530 (this Court should not require a pro se motion to conform with exactitude to that which would be expected of experienced legal counsel). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Welton Homes v. Eckman
green
1 sentence2007FACTS We adopt the statement of facts set forth in the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in New Welton Homes v. Eckman, *495 830 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.2005), which reads as follows: In December 1998, Lance and Karen Eckman contracted with Don Welton Manufactured Housing, Inc. (now “New Welton”) to purchase and place a 1999 Commodore Modular Home. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Moss v. State
green
1 sentence2001Sturma v. State, 683 N.E.2d 606, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Moss v. State, 165 Ind.App. 502, 511-12 , 335 N.E.2d 633, 634 (1975), wpon rehearing. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.