6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Temperly v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Temperly v. State, 933 N.E.2d 558, 567 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (citing Ind. Code § 9-13-2-131 ). | 1 | 1 |
Garrett v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Garrett v. State, 680 N.E.2d 1, 2-3 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Stategreen2 sentences2000The Sullivan court disagreed, concluding that “given the factual circumstances of this case, the jury could reasonably have determined that Sullivan’s blood-alcohol level met or exceeded ten-hundredths percent at the time of the offense without expert testimony relating the chemical test result back to the time of violation.” Id. at 1252 (emphasis added). 2000Id. at 1253 . | 1 | 1 |
Tyner v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Smith v. State, 502 N.E.2d 122 , 127 n. 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (“It would be necessary to show the blood alcohol content at the time of the offense by means of extrapolation or test results obtained at the time of the violation.”), reh’g denied, tmns. denied ; Tyner v. State, 503 N.E.2d 444, 449 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (citing to Smith for the same proposition). | 1 | 1 |
Platt v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Platt v. State, 589 N.E.2d 222, 228 (Ind.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Smith v. State, 502 N.E.2d 122 , 127 n. 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (“It would be necessary to show the blood alcohol content at the time of the offense by means of extrapolation or test results obtained at the time of the violation.”), reh’g denied, tmns. denied ; Tyner v. State, 503 N.E.2d 444, 449 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (citing to Smith for the same proposition). | 1 | 1 |
Finney v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Finney v. State, 686 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied, In particular, the jury is permitted to find that a defendant’s blood alcohol is at least .10% at the time of the alleged violation if the test is administered within three hours of the violation and the results of the test reveal a blood alcohol of at least .10%. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allman v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1988The Warner decision was criticized by the majority in Clark v. State (1987), Ind.App., 512 N.E.2d 223, 228 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Summers v. State
green
2 sentences1980Nevertheless, because Defendant was a juvenile, we choose to treat this case on its merits pursuant to the reasoning of our Supreme Court in Summers v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320 . 1980Nevertheless, because Defendant was a juvenile, we choose to treat this case on its merits pursuant to the reasoning of our Supreme Court in Summers v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1980We are further cognizant of Harris v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1346 , which held that any error in failing to have a preliminary investigation hearing was waived unless first raised at the time of the alleged error. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.