7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Butt v. McEvoygreen1 sentence2019See City of Anderson v. Weatherford, 714 N.E.2d 181, 185-186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (observing that, while the defendants blatantly disregarded the chief’s instructions and standard departmental procedure, the officers’ conduct of arresting the plaintiff pursuant to a valid arrest warrant did not serve to remove them from the cover of ITCA, and that such action was done in furtherance of their employer’s business of executing a duly issued warrant, and concluding that the officers’ arrest of the plaintiff was not so incompatible with the performance of their employment as to be deemed outside th | 1 | 1 |
City of Anderson v. Weatherfordgreen1 sentence2019See City of Anderson v. Weatherford, 714 N.E.2d 181, 185-186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (observing that, while the defendants blatantly disregarded the chief’s instructions and standard departmental procedure, the officers’ conduct of arresting the plaintiff pursuant to a valid arrest warrant did not serve to remove them from the cover of ITCA, and that such action was done in furtherance of their employer’s business of executing a duly issued warrant, and concluding that the officers’ arrest of the plaintiff was not so incompatible with the performance of their employment as to be deemed outside th | 1 | 1 |
Serino v. Hensleygreen1 sentence2019See City of Anderson v. Weatherford, 714 N.E.2d 181, 185-186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (observing that, while the defendants blatantly disregarded the chief’s instructions and standard departmental procedure, the officers’ conduct of arresting the plaintiff pursuant to a valid arrest warrant did not serve to remove them from the cover of ITCA, and that such action was done in furtherance of their employer’s business of executing a duly issued warrant, and concluding that the officers’ arrest of the plaintiff was not so incompatible with the performance of their employment as to be deemed outside th | 1 | 1 |
Cody Waldrip v. Angela Waldrip, City of Bloomington, Indiana, Monroe County, Indiana, State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019See City of Anderson v. Weatherford, 714 N.E.2d 181, 185-186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (observing that, while the defendants blatantly disregarded the chief’s instructions and standard departmental procedure, the officers’ conduct of arresting the plaintiff pursuant to a valid arrest warrant did not serve to remove them from the cover of ITCA, and that such action was done in furtherance of their employer’s business of executing a duly issued warrant, and concluding that the officers’ arrest of the plaintiff was not so incompatible with the performance of their employment as to be deemed outside th | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2010In evaluating the jury instruction, we cited Smith v. State, 459 N.E.2d 355 *1280 (Ind.1984), and Zickefoose v. State, 270 Ind. 618 , 388 N.E.2d 507 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Toddgreen1 sentence1997See Miller, 551 N.E.2d at 1142 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spradlin v. State
green
1 sentence2010In reversing, we noted, "Nowhere in the instructions is there a requirement that the State prove that the Spradlins, at the time that they struck, stabbed, and eut the victims, intended to kill such victims." Spradlin, 569 N.E.2d at 951 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Zickefoose v. State
green
2 sentences2010In evaluating the jury instruction, we cited Smith v. State, 459 N.E.2d 355 *1280 (Ind.1984), and Zickefoose v. State, 270 Ind. 618 , 388 N.E.2d 507 (1979). 2010In evaluating the jury instruction, we cited Smith v. State, 459 N.E.2d 355 *1280 (Ind.1984), and Zickefoose v. State, 270 Ind. 618 , 388 N.E.2d 507 (1979). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Francis v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Dias v. Daisy-Heddon
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence1988In Parker v. State (1981), Ind., 425 N.E. 2d 628 , the defendant did not testify at his *1207 trial. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hinchcliffe v. Koontz
green
2 sentences1919Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, supra, 121 ; Inland Steel Co. v. Harris (1911), 49 Ind. App. 157, 163 , 95 N. E. 271 ; Hinchcliffe v. Koontz (1890), 121 Ind. 422, 426 , 23 N. E. 271 , 16 Am. 1919Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, supra, 121 ; Inland Steel Co. v. Harris (1911), 49 Ind. App. 157, 163 , 95 N. E. 271 ; Hinchcliffe v. Koontz (1890), 121 Ind. 422, 426 , 23 N. E. 271 , 16 Am. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Inland Steel Co. v. Harris
neutral
2 sentences1919Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, supra, 121 ; Inland Steel Co. v. Harris (1911), 49 Ind. App. 157, 163 , 95 N. E. 271 ; Hinchcliffe v. Koontz (1890), 121 Ind. 422, 426 , 23 N. E. 271 , 16 Am. 1919Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, supra, 121 ; Inland Steel Co. v. Harris (1911), 49 Ind. App. 157, 163 , 95 N. E. 271 ; Hinchcliffe v. Koontz (1890), 121 Ind. 422, 426 , 23 N. E. 271 , 16 Am. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Elkhart Mutual Aid, Benevolent & Relief Ass'n v. Houghton
green
1 sentence1891We are, therefore, to examine the instructions under the rule stated in the recent' case of Elkhart, etc., Ass’n v. Houghton, 103 Ind. 286 , as follows : “ It is well settled, also, that where the evidence is not in the record, the judgment wilj not be reversed on account of an instruction, if, upon any state of the evidence which might properly have been before the jury, the instruction would have been correct. | 1 | 1891–1891 |
Weir Plow Co. v. Walmsley
neutral
1 sentence1891In such a case, it will be presumed that the instruction was applicable to the evidence.” See, also, Weir Plow Co. v. Walmsley, 110 Ind. 242 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.