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 1 courts 2013–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bradford v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind. 1996). [25] Considering all the evidence before the jury, we believe the State negated Fowler’s defense, and our confidence in the outcome is not undermined. 2014Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind.1996); see also Blatchford v. State, 673 N.E.2d 781, 782-83 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 3 | 3 |
Blatchford v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind.1996); see also Blatchford v. State, 673 N.E.2d 781, 782-83 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). 2013Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind.1996); see also Blatchford v. State, 673 N.E.2d 781, 782-83 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Audie Wilson v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Wilson v. State, 4 N.E.3d 670, 676 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied. [10] Identity deception is defined in subsection (a) of the controlling statute. 2015Id. [37] The pleadings show that Honer argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense was not sufficiently raised by counsel, while the State argues that it was. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.