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 1983–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Paternity of HRMgreen1 sentence2017The court reviewed the analysis in McClain, W.B., and Cooper, and found that “the record contained] no indication that H.R.M. had the requisite motivation to tell the truth, as no evidence indicates that she knew [the social worker’s] role or that she was being interviewed for the purpose of medical diagnosis.” Id. at 447. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017After reviewing those cases, the court in VanPatten examined the record and held: “the question before us is whether the record reflects that the child adequately understood the role of the medical professional and the purpose of the visit in order for us to infer that the child was motivated to speak truthfully.” VanPatten, 986 N.E.2d at 265 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Burgett v. State
green
1 sentence2012In Burgett v. State, 758 N.E.2d 571 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, the State had presented evidence of an attempted murder defendant’s drug and gang activity. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Koo v. State
green
1 sentence2012On appeal, a panel of this Court reviewed the defense opening argument, cross-examination, and closing argument and concluded: “Clearly, the defense had presented a specific factual claim of hallucination that the prosecution was entitled to rebut with evidence of prior misconduct.” Id. at 102 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Malone v. State
green
1 sentence2004In Malone v. State, 571 N.E.2d 329 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), a panel of this court reviewed a challenge to a probation revocation where the defendant did not receive a written copy of the conditions of her probation at sentencing. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Powdertech, Inc. v. Joganic
green
2 sentences2004Additionally, in Powdertech, Inc. v. Joganic, 776 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), a panel of this court reviewed a claim of discrimination based on a disability in contravention of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 2004Joganic alleged that he was fired because of his disability, but Powdertech asserted that he was fired because of his "violent conduct." Id. at 1260 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tyson v. State
green
1 sentence2001In Tyson, this court reviewed the factors identified by our supreme court "as appropriate for a trial court to consider in determining its course of action when a party seeks to use the testimony of a witness whose identity is disclosed to the opponent after discovery has been closed." Id. at 282 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shapiro v. Rubens
green
1 sentence1983Shapiro v. Rubens (7th Cir.1948), 166 F.2d 659 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hunter v. Hunter
green
2 sentences1983In Hunter v. Hunter (1972), 152 Ind.App. 365 , 283 N.E.2d 775 , 779 the court reviewed the factors necessary to establish a confidential relationship: a confidential relationship exists whenever confidence is reposed by one party in another with resulting superiority and influence exercised by the other. 1983In Hunter v. Hunter (1972), 152 Ind.App. 365 , 283 N.E.2d 775 , 779 the court reviewed the factors necessary to establish a confidential relationship: a confidential relationship exists whenever confidence is reposed by one party in another with resulting superiority and influence exercised by the other. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.