makes error in Indiana

6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1995 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 (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Muse v. State green ind · 1981 2 sentences 1988Muse v. State (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 . 1983Muse v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 ; Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 469 , 393 N.E.2d 180 .	2	1983–1988
Larkin v. State green ind · 1979 2 sentences 1983Muse v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 ; Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 469 , 393 N.E.2d 180 . 1983Muse v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 ; Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 469 , 393 N.E.2d 180 .	2	1981–1983
Law v. State green ind · 1980 2 sentences 1983Muse v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 ; Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 469 , 393 N.E.2d 180 . 1981Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) Ind., 393 N.E.2d 180 ; Miller v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 635 , 372 N.E.2d 1168 .	2	1981–1983
Burton v. State green ind · 1988 2 sentences 1995Burton v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1163, 1165-1166 . 1995Burton v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1163, 1165-1166 .	1	1995–1995
Miller v. State green ind · 1978 2 sentences 1981Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) Ind., 393 N.E.2d 180 ; Miller v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 635 , 372 N.E.2d 1168 . 1981Law v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 1185 ; Larkin v. State, (1979) Ind., 393 N.E.2d 180 ; Miller v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 635 , 372 N.E.2d 1168 .	1	1981–1981
Grimes v. State green indctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1978As this Court has previously held in Grimes v. State (1976), 170 Ind.App. 525, at 533 , 353 N.E.2d 500 , at 508: “A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to a new trial.” Even if Villanueva had properly preserved this error for review, a reversal would not be proper in this case. 1978As this Court has previously held in Grimes v. State (1976), 170 Ind.App. 525, at 533 , 353 N.E.2d 500 , at 508: “A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to a new trial.” Even if Villanueva had properly preserved this error for review, a reversal would not be proper in this case.	1	1978–1978
Summerlin v. State green ind · 1971 2 sentences 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . 536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . 536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to	1	1976–1976
Warren v. State green ind · 1963 2 sentences 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . 536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . 536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to	1	1976–1976
Wort v. Scott neutral ind · 1853 1 sentence 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . *536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to	1	1976–1976
Murray v. State green ind · 1866 1 sentence 1976The very purpose of the specific objection rule is “to indicate specific errors in the trial court’s instructions so that the court may have an opportunity to make any necessary corrections in order to avoid a new trial.” Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 662 , 271 N.E.2d 411, 416 , citing Warren v. State (1963), 243 Ind. 508 , 188 N.E.2d 108 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141 ; Ledley v. State (1853), 4 Ind. 580 . *536 A defendant may not stand idly by while the trial court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to	1	1976–1976

Where else courts name it

AZ 43 (1985–2026) MI 34 (2005–2026) VA 33 (2000–2025) OH 11 (2002–2024) KS 10 (2009–2022) MT 10 (2001–2017) CA 10 (1961–2022) FL 9 (1921–2019) PA 8 (1924–2026) CO 8 (2000–2024) IN 6 (1976–1995) NY 6 (1889–2026) WI 6 (1969–2022) DC 6 (1970–2017) IL 5 (1920–2025) WA 4 (2007–2019) GA 4 (1990–2020) LA 4 (2000–2014) OR 3 (1988–2016) NC 3 (1980–2021) AL 3 (1991–2014) MD 3 (1973–1996) VI 2 (2023–2023) NE 2 (1958–1997) VT 2 (2011–2025) CT 2 (1957–1996) IA 2 (1984–2014) TX 2 (2014–2023)

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