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 1979–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ind.1995). 1996Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 566 (Ind.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Marco A. Galindo v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018Galindo v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1285, 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Camm v. State
green
1 sentence2016We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of the events of November 19 were relevant to prove an issue other than his propensity to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-709 | April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 10 commit the present crime and the possibility of unfair prejudice was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence that, a mere eight days before the murder of Robbie, Anthony had access to the weapon used to commit the murder. [15] Anthony, however, asserts that the trial court erred in not applying the three- step analysis in Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ealy v. State
green
1 sentence1997In determining whether a coroner’s autopsy report would be excluded under subsection (c), the supreme court set out a three step test 2 : 1) whether the report contains findings which address a materially contested issue in the case; 2) whether the record or report contains factual findings; and 3) whether the report was prepared for advocacy purposes or in anticipation of litigation Id. at 1054 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Arbitration Between Hennen & St. Paul Mercury Insurance
green
1 sentence1979We note that the third step of this test is based upon a sentence found in Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 600.5001 (2): “Such an agreement shall stand as a submission to arbitration of any controversy arising under said contract not expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract.” In Hennen, supra, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the issue of whether or not the uninsured motorist provisions in three St. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Barry
green
2 sentences1979The Michigan Court of Appeals has developed a three step test to determine whether or not an issue is arbitrable: (1) “is there an arbitration agreement in a contract between the parties?”; (2) “is the insured’s claim ‘on its face’ ... or ‘arguably’ related to the contract?”; (3) “is the dispute ‘expressly exempt’ by the terms of the contract?” American Fidelity, supra, 80 Mich.App. at 674-76 , 264 N.W.2d at 95-96 . 1979The Michigan Court of Appeals has developed a three step test to determine whether or not an issue is arbitrable: (1) “is there an arbitration agreement in a contract between the parties?”; (2) “is the insured’s claim ‘on its face’ ... or ‘arguably’ related to the contract?”; (3) “is the dispute ‘expressly exempt’ by the terms of the contract?” American Fidelity, supra, 80 Mich.App. at 674-76 , 264 N.W.2d at 95-96 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.