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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
LAF v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See L.A.F. v. State, 698 N.E.2d 355, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (noting that we will accept a trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous; findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them). 2017See L.A.F. v. State, 698 N.E.2d 355, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (noting that we will accept a trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous; findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them). | 1 | 1 |
Gallagher v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Cf. Gallagher v. State, 274 Ind. 235 , 410 N.E.2d 1290, 1292 (1980) (finding diligence under the circumstances even though petition was filed nine years after trial). 2013Cf. Gallagher v. State, 274 Ind. 235 , 410 N.E.2d 1290, 1292 (1980) (finding diligence under the circumstances even though petition was filed nine years after trial). | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. Stategreen1 sentence2001However, "[sltatements obtained in violation of Miranda and erroneously admitted are subject to harmless error analysis." Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 251 (Ind.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Kc v. Apgreen1 sentence1997This court recently explained the duty element of the tort of negligent parental supervision as follows: The [negligent supervision] exception provides that a parent has a duty to exercise control over her minor child "when the parent knows or should know that injury to another is possible." [ K.C. v. A.P., 577 So.2d 669, 671 (Fla.App.1991), review denied, 589 So.2d 289 .] To be liable the parent must know that her child "had a habit of engaging in the particular act or course of conduct which led to the plaintiff's injury." Id. ... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moran v. State
green
1 sentence2025Moran, 622 N.E.2d at 159-60 . [22] Moreover, the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to rebut Porter’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Porter v. Porter
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 223-25 (quoting Marriage of R.M. 1999Id. at 223-25 (quoting Marriage of R.M. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.