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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Stategreen2 sentences2016A “common nuisance . . . necessarily requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation.” Hale v. State, 785 N.E.2d 641, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [21] “[T]he existence of paraphernalia may be probative of the issue of whether controlled substances were used in the building. 2012The 4 phrase “common nuisance” “necessarily requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation.” Id. (quoting Hale v. State, 785 N.E.2d 641, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). | 2 | 3 |
Zuniga v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5 (a) (definition of common nuisance) & Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5 (c) (elements of Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance). “[T]he term ‘common nuisance’ as used in the statute requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation.” Zuniga v. State, 815 N.E.2d 197, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 2018See Zuniga v. State , 815 N.E.2d 197 , 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding "the term 'common nuisance' as used in the statute requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation"). | 2 | 2 |
Wells v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Wells, 170 Ind.App. at 33 , 351 N.E.2d at 46 (stating that to convict a defendant of visiting a common nuisance the State is required to prove the existence of a continuous or recurrent violation). 2003See, e.g., Wells, 170 Ind.App. at 33 , 351 N.E.2d at 46 (stating that to convict a defendant of visiting a common nuisance the State is required to prove the existence of a continuous or recurrent violation). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bass v. State
green
1 sentence2016Such evidence, however, does not conclusively establish use and therefore cannot, in and of itself, conclusively establish repeated use.” Bass v. State, 512 N.E.2d 460 , 461–63 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Traylor v. State
green
1 sentence2012The 4 phrase “common nuisance” “necessarily requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation.” Id. (quoting Hale v. State, 785 N.E.2d 641, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bass v. State
green
1 sentence2004The term "common nuisance" "necessarily requires proof of a continuous or recurrent violation." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ford v. Florida
green
1 sentence2003The State also cites Frye v. State, 757 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1103 , 122 S.Ct. 2308 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2002), for the proposition that it is not required to prove that Blair's residence had been used on more than one occasion for the unlawful use of a controlled substance. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Urban v. Wisconsin
green
1 sentence2003The State also cites Frye v. State, 757 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1103 , 122 S.Ct. 2308 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2002), for the proposition that it is not required to prove that Blair's residence had been used on more than one occasion for the unlawful use of a controlled substance. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Frye v. State
green
1 sentence2003The State also cites Frye v. State, 757 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1103 , 122 S.Ct. 2308 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2002), for the proposition that it is not required to prove that Blair's residence had been used on more than one occasion for the unlawful use of a controlled substance. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.