justification rule (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

justification rule in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2020 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Bryant v. Stategreen
indctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Bryant v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1135, 1142-43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied; Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3).

11
Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen
indtc · 2014 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See Popovich I, 7 N.E.3d at 418-19 , Thus, even if practitioners commonly respond to discovery requests by raising blanket objections, that common practice cannot satisfy the substantial justification requirement of Indiana Trial.

11
Nill v. Martingreen
ind · 1997 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Cf. Martin, 686 N.E.2d at 118-19 (Boehm, J., dissenting) (arguing that the rationale for the rule requiring court pre-approval of child support modifications "disappears where both parents agree," and advocating for an exception to the rule where the custodial and non-custodial parents agree to a reduction in support after the death or emancipation of a child).

2002Cf Martin, 686 N.E.2d at 118-19 (Boehm, J., dissenting) (arguing that the rationale for the rule requiring court pre-approval of child support modifications "disappears where both parents agree," and advocating for an exception to the rule where the custodial and non-custodial parents agree to a reduction in support after the death or emancipation of a child).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Matter of Estate of Garwood green
ind · 1980
2 sentences

2020The justification for this rule was stated by the Indiana Supreme Court in Matter of Garwood’s Estate, 272 Ind. 519 , 400 N.E.2d 758 , (1980): “It matters not that there was no fraud contemplated and no injury done.

2020The justification for this rule was stated by the Indiana Supreme Court in Matter of Garwood’s Estate, 272 Ind. 519 , 400 N.E.2d 758 , (1980): “It matters not that there was no fraud contemplated and no injury done.

12020–2020
Blatchford v. State green
indctapp · 1996
1 sentence

2012“As a result, the burden of proving the defense remains on the defendant.” Blatchford, 673 N.E.2d at 783 .

12012–2012
McCormick v. State green
ind · 2004
2 sentences

2005McCormick, 803 N.E.2d at 1110 .

2005McCormick, 803 N.E.2d at 1110 .

12005–2005
Opper v. United States green
scotus · 1954
2 sentences

1969The justification for such a rule was well expressed in Opper v. United States, note 4, supra, where it was said: ‘In our country the doubt persists that the zeal of the agencies of prosecution to protect the peace, the self-interest of the accomplice, the maliciousness of an enemy or the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion may tinge or warp the facts of the confession.’ 348 U. S. 84, 89-90 , 75 S. Ct. 158, 162 .

1969The justification for such a rule was well expressed in Opper v. United States, note 4, supra, where it was said: ‘In our country the doubt persists that the zeal of the agencies of prosecution to protect the peace, the self-interest of the accomplice, the maliciousness of an enemy or the aberration or weakness of the accused under the strain of suspicion may tinge or warp the facts of the confession.’ 348 U. S. 84, 89-90 , 75 S. Ct. 158, 162 .

11969–1969

Where else courts name it

NY 780 (1925–2026) GA 222 (1978–2026) TX 177 (1958–2026) PA 118 (1979–2026) AZ 86 (1963–2025) CA 73 (1930–2026) IL 57 (1937–2025) IA 49 (1979–2026) AR 33 (1979–2026) OH 32 (1964–2024) NJ 32 (1908–2022) HI 30 (1981–2025) CT 29 (1975–2026) OR 27 (1898–2024) FL 27 (1968–2025) LA 25 (1984–2025) NC 25 (1981–2026) MA 23 (1976–2024) MO 21 (1975–2025) WA 21 (1974–2026) MD 17 (1967–2019) WY 16 (1981–2024) RI 15 (1988–2019) MI 15 (1974–2026) DC 14 (1970–2025) ME 12 (1987–2026) UT 11 (1994–2026) MN 11 (1984–2016) VA 10 (1991–2024) DE 10 (1976–2025) NH 10 (1982–2024) AL 9 (1909–2025) CO 9 (1952–2020) WI 8 (1980–2023) KY 8 (1951–2024) IN 7 (1969–2020) TN 7 (1996–2018) WV 7 (1928–2010) KS 7 (1990–2019) NE 6 (2005–2026) SD 5 (1981–2025) AK 5 (1988–2025) NM 5 (1999–2019) MS 4 (1984–1997) SC 4 (1980–2023) VT 4 (1979–2025) ND 3 (1993–2007) ID 2 (1999–2000) NV 2 (1991–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check