7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1892–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
PATERNITY OF HMH BY MASSEY v. Hullgreen1 sentence2008See In re Paternity of H.M.H. by Massey v. Hull, 691 N.E.2d 1308, 1310 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (reversing the trial court’s decision to order an execution of a waiver of an exemp *596 tion, and noting “that in doing so, the trial court may be required to recalculate support because one change such as this may produce a change in the entire economic situation of the parties”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Arvle Edgar Medlingreen1 sentence2001See United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that officers' failure to present the search warrant to the defendant at the outset of the search of her property was an execution error that prohibited the application of the good faith exception); United States v. Medlin, 798 F.2d 407, 410 (10th Cir.1986) (holding that the seizure of items not listed in the warrant was an execution error that the good faith exception could not remedy). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Pamela Jean Ganttgreen1 sentence2001See United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that officers' failure to present the search warrant to the defendant at the outset of the search of her property was an execution error that prohibited the application of the good faith exception); United States v. Medlin, 798 F.2d 407, 410 (10th Cir.1986) (holding that the seizure of items not listed in the warrant was an execution error that the good faith exception could not remedy). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. State
green
1 sentence1994It is simply one factor for the trial court to *348 weigh in considering the voluntariness of a statement." Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 712-13 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Blatz v. State
green
1 sentence1979See IC 35-5-5-2; Blatz v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 369 N.E.2d 1086 . 2 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Kansas City Marble & Tile Co. v. Penker Const. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1977In Kansas City Marble & Tile Co. v. Penker Construction Co. (4th Cir. 1936), 86 F.2d 287 , a petitioner sought to recover from the general contractor and its bondsman for the value of materials furnished to a subcontractor in the construction of a public building. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Quill v. City of Indianapolis
green
1 sentence1896Upon the execution of this waiver alone, depended the right of appellees to pay the assessment in installments, and having executed the agreement and release, cannot now be heard to question the regularity of the assessment. ‘ ‘ When the work is completed the property owner has his election to refuse to sign the agreement provided for, and stand upon his common law rights in respect to contesting the validity of the assessments made against him, in which case the assessment becomes due when made, or he may waive any irregularities, and secure the benefit of ten years’ time by signing an agreem | 1 | 1896–1896 |
Bliss v. Douch
neutral
2 sentences1892In Bliss v. Douch, 110 Ind. 296 , the court says: “We are of the opinion, however, that before a surety in an execution can claim that the sheriff is liable to him in damages for his failure or neglect to levy such execution first upon and exhaust the property of the principal therein, he must show by proper averments that he had caused {the question of suretyship to be tried and determined’ as provided in section 1212, supra, and had procured an order to be made, as provided for in section 1213, supra. This is substantially what we decided in Douch v. Bliss, supra, on the former appeal herein 1892In Bliss v. Douch, 110 Ind. 296 , the court says: “We are of the opinion, however, that before a surety in an execution can claim that the sheriff is liable to him in damages for his failure or neglect to levy such execution first upon and exhaust the property of the principal therein, he must show by proper averments that he had caused {the question of suretyship to be tried and determined’ as provided in section 1212, supra, and had procured an order to be made, as provided for in section 1213, supra. This is substantially what we decided in Douch v. Bliss, supra, on the former appeal herein | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.