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 1973–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pettrie v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998) (noting, less than two months after Bouye, that the trial court must supply the requested information after it, “in the exercise of its discretion, has determined that a question posed or information requested by the jury relates to ‘a disagreement’ among the jurors”); Counceller v. State, 466 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. 1984) (stating that, “[w]e do not believe that the judge committed any error by not asking if there was disagreement before asking if the jury wanted the testimony replayed,” where the issue was the sequence of events in which t | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998) (noting, less than two months after Bouye, that the trial court must supply the requested information after it, “in the exercise of its discretion, has determined that a question posed or information requested by the jury relates to ‘a disagreement’ among the jurors”); Counceller v. State, 466 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. 1984) (stating that, “[w]e do not believe that the judge committed any error by not asking if there was disagreement before asking if the jury wanted the testimony replayed,” where the issue was the sequence of events in which t | 1 | 1 |
Counceller v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998) (noting, less than two months after Bouye, that the trial court must supply the requested information after it, “in the exercise of its discretion, has determined that a question posed or information requested by the jury relates to ‘a disagreement’ among the jurors”); Counceller v. State, 466 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. 1984) (stating that, “[w]e do not believe that the judge committed any error by not asking if there was disagreement before asking if the jury wanted the testimony replayed,” where the issue was the sequence of events in which t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998) (noting, less than two months after Bouye, that the trial court must supply the requested information after it, “in the exercise of its discretion, has determined that a question posed or information requested by the jury relates to ‘a disagreement’ among the jurors”); Counceller v. State, 466 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. 1984) (stating that, “[w]e do not believe that the judge committed any error by not asking if there was disagreement before asking if the jury wanted the testimony replayed,” where the issue was the sequence of events in which t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Davis
green
2 sentences1982If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearing or order such references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required." [2] Davis v. Davis, (1980) Ind. App., 413 N.E.2d 993 , had not yet been decided at the time of the August 4, 1980, trial of this cause. 1982Davis v. Davis, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 993 , had not yet been decided at the time of the August 4, 1980, trial of this cause. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Hiatt v. Yergin
green
2 sentences1977The three day notice requirement in TR. 55(B) (as well as Local Court Rule 5(B)) 3 was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Northside Cab Co., Inc. v. Penman (1973), 156 Ind. App. 577 , 297 N.E.2d 838, at 841 , and Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 152 Ind. App. 497 , 284 N.E.2d 834, 841 . 1977The three day notice requirement in TR. 55(B) (as well as Local Court Rule 5(B)) 3 was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Northside Cab Co., Inc. v. Penman (1973), 156 Ind. App. 577 , 297 N.E.2d 838, at 841 , and Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 152 Ind. App. 497 , 284 N.E.2d 834, 841 . | 2 | 1973–1977 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2013See Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998) (noting, less than two months after Bouye, that the trial court must supply the requested information after it, “in the exercise of its discretion, has determined that a question posed or information requested by the jury relates to ‘a disagreement’ among the jurors”); Counceller v. State, 466 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. 1984) (stating that, “[w]e do not believe that the judge committed any error by not asking if there was disagreement before asking if the jury wanted the testimony replayed,” where the issue was the sequence of events in which t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Christian Business Phone Book, Inc. v. Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council
green
1 sentence1993Christian Phone Book v. Jewish Community Relations Council (1991), Ind.App., 576 N.E.2d 1276, 1276-1277 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kirk v. Harris
green
1 sentence1979He could, thereby, preserve his right to a jury trial as provided in Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 55(B), which reads in pertinent part: “If, in order to enable the court to enter [default] judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearing or order such references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required.” See Kirk v. Harris | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Northside Cab Company, Inc. v. Penman
green
2 sentences1977The three day notice requirement in TR. 55(B) (as well as Local Court Rule 5(B)) 3 was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Northside Cab Co., Inc. v. Penman (1973), 156 Ind. App. 577 , 297 N.E.2d 838, at 841 , and Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 152 Ind. App. 497 , 284 N.E.2d 834, 841 . 1977The three day notice requirement in TR. 55(B) (as well as Local Court Rule 5(B)) 3 was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Northside Cab Co., Inc. v. Penman (1973), 156 Ind. App. 577 , 297 N.E.2d 838, at 841 , and Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 152 Ind. App. 497 , 284 N.E.2d 834, 841 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.