6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Indiana courts have also explicitly accepted that an objective reasonableness standard “is used *577 in many areas of the law as an appropriate determinant of liability and thus a guide to conduct,” and it also “provides a constraining and intelligible enforcement guideline for police and prosecutors.” Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 967 (Ind.1993). 9 Based upon the long-recognized purpose of this statute and our prior application of a reasonable person standard, we must conclude that the application of a reasonableness standard to the term “annoys” satisfies constitutional requirements. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020As the Court noted in a different case, “a reasonable person standard provides enough notice of prohibited conduct and limitations upon discretionary enforcement to satisfy constitutional concerns.” Morgan, 22 N.E.3d at 576 . [25] Following the holding in Morgan, we conclude the objective reasonableness standard adopted in Willis would provide sufficient notice of what conduct crosses the line from mere discipline of a child to battery. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnny Lee Prymer v. Kevin Ogden, Simon Solis, and Mark Hollis
green
1 sentence2017Violation of Use of Force Rule One of the Merit Board’s conclusions was that'Gray violated Rule 4.2-23 pertaining to use of force. 2 At the review hearing, Gray argued that the “Board misapplied the law,” Tr. at 10, and urged that the trial court consider the evidence of his use of force in light of the objective reasonableness standard described in Graham , and applied in Prymer v. Ogden, 29 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1994). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Yedinak
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 358 , 676 A.2d 1217 . 1999Id. at 358 , 676 A.2d 1217 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
James R. Briggs and Louisa Briggs v. Edward Malley
green
1 sentence1997Citing Briggs v. Malley, 748 F.2d 715 (1st Cir.1984), aff'd 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), Kelley argues the conduct of government officials is to be measured by an objective reasonableness standard, and conduct which violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known will support § 1983 liability. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Malley v. Briggs
green
2 sentences1997Citing Briggs v. Malley, 748 F.2d 715 (1st Cir.1984), aff'd 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), Kelley argues the conduct of government officials is to be measured by an objective reasonableness standard, and conduct which violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known will support § 1983 liability. 1997Citing Briggs v. Malley, 748 F.2d 715 (1st Cir.1984), aff'd 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), Kelley argues the conduct of government officials is to be measured by an objective reasonableness standard, and conduct which violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known will support § 1983 liability. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Smithers
green
2 sentences1975The court went on to explain that the objective reasonableness standard had previously been established in State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 where it was stated: “ '. . would the facts available to the officer at the mo-' ment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable.caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate? . . .’” 259 Ind. at 180 . 1975The court went on to explain that the objective reasonableness standard had previously been established in State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 where it was stated: “ '. . would the facts available to the officer at the mo-' ment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable.caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate? . . .’” 259 Ind. at 180 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Luckett v. State
green
1 sentence1975The court went on to explain that the objective reasonableness standard had previously been established in State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 where it was stated: “ '. . would the facts available to the officer at the mo-' ment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable.caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate? . . .’” 259 Ind. at 180 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.