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 1994–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eddie Trail and Katrinka Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indianagreen1 sentence2025Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130, 134 (Ind. 2006) (alterations in original). [15] Hamilton contends that the trial court erred when it denied Hamilton’s motion to dismiss because Jurus filed her complaint after the statute of limitations had run. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Harris v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. 2007) (citing Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Harris v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. 2007) (citing Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
David A. Mathews v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2024As the Mathews court persuasively reasoned with respect to former Indiana Criminal Rule 12(B),1 allowing CJC Rule 2.11(A) to serve as “a freestanding mechanism for relief” would “effectively nullify” Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) and “usurp the exclusive supervisory authority of our supreme court over judicial conduct.” 64 N.E.3d at 1254, 1255 . | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Guardianship of Garrardgreen1 sentence2024“The public entrusts the judiciary ‘to provide a tribunal as superior to influence as possible, in which [a] claim might be decided.’” Matter of Guardianship of Garrard, 624 N.E.2d 68, 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 382, (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)). | 1 | 1 |
Wolfe v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Hamilton adequately preserved his claim the State introduced improper vouching evidence against him. ■ [4] We recognize that Hoglund stated, “ ‘the erroneous admission of evidence which-is cumulative of-other evidence admitted-without objection does not constitute reversible error.’ ” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1240 (quoting Wolfe v. State, 562 N.E.2d 414, 421 (Ind.1990)),' Here, the interviewer’s final, objected-to statement that D.P. and A.S. did not exhibit any signs of coaching is not merely cumulative of the prior unobjected-to testimony, regarding two specific indicators of coaching. | 1 | 1 |
Head v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Head v. State, 519 N.E.2d 151, 153 (Ind.1988) (reversing molestation convictions for improper vouching evidence described as'“an invasion of the province of the jury in determining what weight they would place upon the child’s testimony.”). [20] In overruling Hamilton’s objection; the trial court ruled in part that Hamilton had “opened the door” to Elfr-eieh’s coaching testimony because he had asked both D.P. and A.S. during cross-examination whether anyone had told them what to say in court. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence2007Cf. Smith, 779 N.E.2d at 8-9. | 1 | 1 |
Branham v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.green1 sentence2006DISCUSSION AND DECISION “The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no material factual dispute and which can be resolved as a matter of law.” Branham v. Celadon Trucking Serv., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514, 521 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied 753 N.E.2d 16 (Ind.2001); see also Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cohens v. Virginia
green
1 sentence2024“The public entrusts the judiciary ‘to provide a tribunal as superior to influence as possible, in which [a] claim might be decided.’” Matter of Guardianship of Garrard, 624 N.E.2d 68, 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 382, (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hoglund v. State
green
2 sentences2015The objected-to testimony was clearly improper, and Hamilton’s objection should have been sustained per Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind.2015), and Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.2012). 2015Hamilton adequately preserved his claim the State introduced improper vouching evidence against him. ■ [4] We recognize that Hoglund stated, “ ‘the erroneous admission of evidence which-is cumulative of-other evidence admitted-without objection does not constitute reversible error.’ ” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1240 (quoting Wolfe v. State, 562 N.E.2d 414, 421 (Ind.1990)),' Here, the interviewer’s final, objected-to statement that D.P. and A.S. did not exhibit any signs of coaching is not merely cumulative of the prior unobjected-to testimony, regarding two specific indicators of coaching. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Craig Sampson v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2015The objected-to testimony was clearly improper, and Hamilton’s objection should have been sustained per Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind.2015), and Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Whatley v. State
green
1 sentence2012Whatley, 847 N.E.2d at 1009 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1994The trial court denied Hamilton's motion and the supreme court affirmed stating in pertinent part as follows: "In the absence of a showing that the defendant had the financial ability to retain private counsel, 7 was unable to pursue private representation because of some event or cireumstance outside of his control, or had identified private counsel who was willing to represent him, we cannot conclude that there was a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights." Id. 636 A.2d at 768 . 1994The trial court denied Hamilton's motion and the supreme court affirmed stating in pertinent part as follows: "In the absence of a showing that the defendant had the financial ability to retain private counsel, 7 was unable to pursue private representation because of some event or cireumstance outside of his control, or had identified private counsel who was willing to represent him, we cannot conclude that there was a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights." Id. 636 A.2d at 768 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.