43 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Rosivito Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2018The Indiana Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient that the trial court make the defendant “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Leonard, 579 N.E.2d at 1295 (internal citation omitted). [13] In reviewing the adequacy of a waiver, we consider four factors: “(1) the extent of the court’s inquiry into the defendant’s decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, 2010Rather, appellate courts generally consider four factors when reviewing the adequacy of a waiver of counsel: " '(1) the extent of the court's inquiry into the defendant's decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, (8) the background and experience of the defendant, and (4) the context of the defendant's decision to proceed pro se." 2 Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122, 1127-28 (Ind.2001) (quoting United States v. Hoskins, 243 F.3d 407, 410 (7th Cir.2001)). | 4 | 4 |
Kubsch v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Kubsch v. State, 866 N.E.2d 726, 736 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1067 , 128 S. Ct. 2501 (2008). 2018The Indiana Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient that the trial court make the defendant “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Leonard, 579 N.E.2d at 1295 (internal citation omitted). [13] In reviewing the adequacy of a waiver, we consider four factors: “(1) the extent of the court’s inquiry into the defendant’s decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, | 3 | 4 |
Leonard v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Leonard v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1294, 1295 (Ind. 1991). [27] In reviewing the adequacy of a waiver, we consider four factors: (1) the extent of the court’s inquiry into the defendant’s decision, (2) other evidence in the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-642 | October 18, 2019 Page 19 of 27 record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, (3) the background and experience of the defendant, and (4) the context of the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se. 2019Leonard v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1294, 1295 (Ind. 1991). [16] In reviewing the adequacy of a waiver, we consider four factors: (1) the extent of the court’s inquiry into the defendant’s decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, (3) the background and experience of the defendant, and (4) the context of the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se. | 3 | 3 |
Poynter v. Stategreen2 sentences2018The Indiana Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient that the trial court make the defendant “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Leonard, 579 N.E.2d at 1295 (internal citation omitted). [13] In reviewing the adequacy of a waiver, we consider four factors: “(1) the extent of the court’s inquiry into the defendant’s decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, 2010Rather, appellate courts generally consider four factors when reviewing the adequacy of a waiver of counsel: " '(1) the extent of the court's inquiry into the defendant's decision, (2) other evidence in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, (8) the background and experience of the defendant, and (4) the context of the defendant's decision to proceed pro se." 2 Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122, 1127-28 (Ind.2001) (quoting United States v. Hoskins, 243 F.3d 407, 410 (7th Cir.2001)). | 2 | 4 |
Jarrell v. Monsanto Co.green2 sentences1992"The adequacy of warnings is classically a question of fact reserved to the trier of fact and, therefore, usually an inappropriate matter for summary judgement." Jarrell, supra, 528 N.E.2d at 1162 . 1992"The adequacy of warnings is classically a question of fact reserved to the trier of fact and, therefore, usually an inappropriate matter for summary judgement." Jarrell, supra, 528 N.E.2d at 1162 . | 1 | 6 |
Allen v. Westpoint-Pepperell, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2019Indus. , 998 F.2d 1192 , 1196-97 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint [...] and matters of public record."); Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc. , 945 F.2d 40 , 44 (2d Cir. 1991) ("In determining the adequacy of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), consideration is limited to the facts stated on the face of the complaint [...] and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.") (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered Agentgreen1 sentence2019Indus. , 998 F.2d 1192 , 1196-97 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint [...] and matters of public record."); Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc. , 945 F.2d 40 , 44 (2d Cir. 1991) ("In determining the adequacy of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), consideration is limited to the facts stated on the face of the complaint [...] and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.") (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Randall v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.green2 sentences2015Co., 800 N.E.2d 951, 956 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (noting that plaintiffs attempt to avoid preemption by stating his negligence claims in terms of the railroad’s duty to petition State and local authorities to upgrade warning devices- at an allegedly extra hazardous crossing was ineffective because the claims “ultimately amount to an effort to hold the Railroad responsible for the adequacy of the warning devices”), tram, denied. 2015Finally, Shanklin also made it.clear that even,if conditions have changed at a crossing where warning signs were installed with federal funds, such that gates and lights would now be appropriate, that “is immaterial to the pre-emption question.” Id. at 358 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 . | 1 | 1 |
Holler v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Holler v. State, 106 N.E. 364, 364 (Ind. 1914) (“The proper Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision | 06A01-1411-MI-508 | April 14, 2015 Page 7 of 14 mode of testing an information for indirect contempt is by a motion to discharge the rule to show cause.”). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Rail Road v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2015Cf. Davidson, 983 N.E.2d at 152 (concluding there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether federal preemption continued to apply when cross-bucks which had originally been installed with federal funds in 1978 had been replaced with state funds pursuant to an application which did not incorporate the federal plans from the earlier-project and were not placed in the exact same location as those installed with federal funds).- Although CSXT sent a letter to the Jamestown Town Council in late 2008 regarding the speed -increase and stating that the “signals at the [affected Jamestown] crossing | 1 | 1 |
Ware v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014(App’x at 100.) Cochran did not challenge the adequacy of the instruction at trial; failure to object to an instruction at trial waives the propriety of the instruction for appellate review, Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind. 2013), and we presume the jury to have followed the trial court’s instructions. | 1 | 1 |
Bowyer v. Indiana Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2012See Bowyer v. Indiana Dep’t of Natural Res., 944 N.E.2d 972 , 991 n.17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 5 basic facts must reveal its analysis of the evidence and its determination regarding specific issues of fact that bear on the particular claim. | 1 | 1 |
Light v. Stategreen1 sentence2006The State also contends, citing Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1079 (Ind.1989) (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979), that Keller's understanding and subsequent valid waiver of his constitutional rights can be inferred from his initialing and signing the advice of rights form, as *164 well as by statements he made during the course of the three-hour interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
Natural Gas Odorizing, Inc. v. Downsgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Natural Gas Odorizing, Inc. v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 155, 161 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (holding in a products liability case that whether a duty to warn exists is a question of law and the adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury), reh'g denied, trans. denied. 2004See, e.g., Natural Gas Odorizing, Inc. v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 155, 161 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (holding in a products liability case that whether a duty to warn exists is a question of law and the adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury), reh'g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Bautista v. Verson Allsteel Press Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Monsanto Co. v. Jarrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Verna Stephen, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew Stephen, Deceased v. American Brands, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keihngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman
green
2 sentences1981In Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman, (1979) Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 541 , the Court of Appeals held that a defect can be found from a complete absence of warnings or from inadequate warnings and that the test of the adequacy of a warning is whether it was reasonable under the circumstances. 1981In Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman, (1979) Ind. App., 388 N.E.2d 541 , the Court of Appeals held that a defect can be found from a complete absence of warnings or from inadequate warnings and that the test of the adequacy of a warning is whether it was reasonable under the circumstances. | 4 | 1980–1990 |
Patterson v. State
green
2 sentences2010In Patterson v. State, 270 Ind. 469 , 386 N.E.2d *898 936, 941 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 283 , 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979), we held that "the adequacy of the inquiry must be judged in the light of the individual situation and the likelihood that a conflict will arise." In the case before us, the trial court was notified of a potential conflict between Johnson and his counsel by receipt of Johnson's letter, dated June 3, 2009. 1980In Patterson v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 936 , we dealt with, a similar issue and stated that “the adequacy of the inquiry must be judged in light of the individual situation and the likelihood that a conflict will arise.” 386 N.E.2d at 941 . | 3 | 1980–2010 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford
green
2 sentences2019"Although the adequacy of warnings, which implicates breach of duty, is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact to resolve, the nature of the duty to provide warnings is a question of law to be decided by the court." Rushford , 868 N.E.2d at 810 . [20] Although neither party cites the Indiana Product Liability Act, we note that the Act "governs all actions that are: (1) brought by a user or consumer; (2) against a manufacturer or seller; and (3) for physical harm caused by a product; regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought." Ind. Code 2008Ford Motor Co., 868 N.E.2d at 810 . | 2 | 2008–2019 |
Benton v. City of Oakland City
green
2 sentences2018Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 232 . 2007Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 232 . | 2 | 2007–2018 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
green
2 sentences2015Those regulations displace state and private decision-making authority by establishing a mandatory federal law requirement that particular warning devices be installed or federal approval obtained when federal funds participate in the installation of the warning devices, “effectively set[ting] the terms under which railroads are to participate in the improvement of crossings.” Id. at 670 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 . [12] Subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) address the adequacy of warning devices installed under the Crossings Program. 2003As the supreme court has made clear, once a state has installed federally funded devices at a particular crossing, the state is preempted from "impos[ing] an independent duty on a railroad to identify and/or repair dangerous crossings." CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 671 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 ; see also Norfolk S. Ry. | 2 | 2003–2015 |
McNair v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2010In Patterson v. State, 270 Ind. 469 , 386 N.E.2d *898 936, 941 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 283 , 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979), we held that "the adequacy of the inquiry must be judged in the light of the individual situation and the likelihood that a conflict will arise." In the case before us, the trial court was notified of a potential conflict between Johnson and his counsel by receipt of Johnson's letter, dated June 3, 2009. 1990Patterson v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 469 , 386 N.E.2d 936, 941 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 283 , 62 L.Ed.2d 194 . | 2 | 1990–2010 |
McManues v. Overberg
green
2 sentences2010In Patterson v. State, 270 Ind. 469 , 386 N.E.2d *898 936, 941 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 283 , 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979), we held that "the adequacy of the inquiry must be judged in the light of the individual situation and the likelihood that a conflict will arise." In the case before us, the trial court was notified of a potential conflict between Johnson and his counsel by receipt of Johnson's letter, dated June 3, 2009. 2010In Patterson v. State, 270 Ind. 469 , 386 N.E.2d *898 936, 941 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 283 , 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979), we held that "the adequacy of the inquiry must be judged in the light of the individual situation and the likelihood that a conflict will arise." In the case before us, the trial court was notified of a potential conflict between Johnson and his counsel by receipt of Johnson's letter, dated June 3, 2009. | 2 | 1990–2010 |
Isenhour v. State
green
2 sentences1979This is not the test: The true rule appears to be fairly stated in the case of Isenhour v. State, 1901, 157 Ind. 517, 528 , 62 N.E. 40, 44 , 87 Am. 1979This is not the test: The true rule appears to be fairly stated in the case of Isenhour v. State, 1901, 157 Ind. 517, 528 , 62 N.E. 40, 44 , 87 Am. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
LHO Indianapolis One Lessee, LLC v. Esther Bowman, Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Individuals
green
2 sentences2024The Class Satisfies the Adequacy of Representation and Typicality Requirements [91] The adequacy requirement in Trial Rule 23(A)(4) has three components: “(1) the chosen class representative cannot have antagonistic or conflicting claims with other members of the class; (2) the named representative must have a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous adequacy; and (3) counsel for the named plaintiff must be competent, experienced, qualified, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation vigorously.” LHO, 40 N.E.3d at 1273 . 2024Id. at 1272 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corporation
green
1 sentence2017Weigle , 729 F.3d at 731 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Timothy W. Parish v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017Parish, 989 N.E.2d 831 . [9] In this case, Lewis appeared at an initial hearing on December 23, 2015. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin
green
1 sentence2015Finally, Shanklin also made it.clear that even,if conditions have changed at a crossing where warning signs were installed with federal funds, such that gates and lights would now be appropriate, that “is immaterial to the pre-emption question.” Id. at 358 , 120 S.Ct. 1467 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Trietsch v. Circle Design Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Rushford, 868 N.E.2d at 810 . 2009Rushford, 868 N.E.2d at 810 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
North Carolina v. Butler
red
2 sentences2006The State also contends, citing Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1079 (Ind.1989) (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979), that Keller's understanding and subsequent valid waiver of his constitutional rights can be inferred from his initialing and signing the advice of rights form, as *164 well as by statements he made during the course of the three-hour interrogation. 2006The State also contends, citing Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1079 (Ind.1989) (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979), that Keller's understanding and subsequent valid waiver of his constitutional rights can be inferred from his initialing and signing the advice of rights form, as *164 well as by statements he made during the course of the three-hour interrogation. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Robert Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Palmer v. Liggett Group, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Martin County, Florida v. Makemson Et Al.; And Okeechobee County, Florida v. Dennis Et Al. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Sills v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Stanley v. Johnson neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Shanks v. A. F. E. Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.