7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chesterfield Management, Inc. v. Cookgreen1 sentence2023See Chesterfield Mgmt., Inc. v. Cook, 655 N.E.2d 98, 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“As the Unfiled Documents were never before the trial court, their exclusion from the Record on appeal is neither an omission nor a misstatement of the record. [The Rule] does not authorize including in the Record evidence that was never before the trial court.”), reh’g denied, trans. denied. [40] Owens’s motion to supplement the record amounted to an untimely offer of proof, and his counsel admitted as much at the hearing on the motion. | 1 | 1 |
Lucio v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Lucio v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1008, 1011 (Ind.2009) (holding that denial of mistrial was not abuse of discretion where statement was fleeting, inadvertent, and only a minor *896 part of evidence against defendant and trial court admonished jury to disregard statement). | 1 | 1 |
Robinett v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Robinett v. State, 798 N.E.2d 537, 540 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (because defendant agreed to specific term of years in agreement, court was without authority to modify the sentence), trans. denied 812 N.E.2d 793 (Ind.2004). 2008See Robinett v. State, 798 N.E.2d 537, 540 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (because defendant agreed to specific term of years in agreement, court was without authority to modify the sentence), trans. denied 812 N.E.2d 793 (Ind.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Hare v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Thereafter in Pavone v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 162 , 402 N.E.2d 976 , our supreme court approved the Owens standard without articulating it; Id. at 165 , 402 N.E.2d at 978-79 ; and four years later, in Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7 , our supreme court again laid out the Owens standard using the language stated above. 1995Thereafter in Pavone v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 162 , 402 N.E.2d 976 , our supreme court approved the Owens standard without articulating it; Id. at 165 , 402 N.E.2d at 978-79 ; and four years later, in Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7 , our supreme court again laid out the Owens standard using the language stated above. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stokes v. State
green
1 sentence2018“We determine the gravity of the peril based upon the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury’s decision rather than upon the degree of impropriety of the conduct.” Id. [15] The trial court granted Owens’ motion in limine to prevent the State from introducing evidence that Owens was on parole at the time of the search of his room, which resulted in police finding cocaine. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of Indiana v. Frank Greene
green
1 sentence2015State v. Greene, 16 N.E.3d 416 (Ind. 2014). [14] Owens argues that Attorney Lockwood was deficient because “he volunteered information harmful to Owens’s defense”—specifically, that Thompson had never been in jail. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Owens v. State
green
1 sentence2013You shall disregard her last statement in regards to the reason why she did not tell anyone immediately after the incident.” Id. at 894-95 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2010You shall disregard her last statement in regards to the reason why she did not tell anyone immediately after the incident." Id. at 130 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Davidson v. State
green
2 sentences1995However, in Davidson, the supreme court restated the Owens standard, rephrasing the fourth prerequisite by omitting the initial phrases and, most importantly to our interpretation of the standard, omitting the word "should." See Davidson, 558 N.E.2d at 1085-86 . 1995However, in Davidson, the supreme court restated the Owens standard, rephrasing the fourth prerequisite by omitting the initial phrases and, most importantly to our interpretation of the standard, omitting the word "should." See Davidson, 558 N.E.2d at 1085-86 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pavone v. State
green
2 sentences1995Thereafter in Pavone v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 162 , 402 N.E.2d 976 , our supreme court approved the Owens standard without articulating it; Id. at 165 , 402 N.E.2d at 978-79 ; and four years later, in Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7 , our supreme court again laid out the Owens standard using the language stated above. 1995Thereafter in Pavone v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 162 , 402 N.E.2d 976 , our supreme court approved the Owens standard without articulating it; Id. at 165 , 402 N.E.2d at 978-79 ; and four years later, in Hare v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7 , our supreme court again laid out the Owens standard using the language stated above. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.