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 2 courts 1994–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cave Quarries Inc. v. Warex, LLCgreen2 sentences2026We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Cave Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, 240 N.E.3d 681 , 684 (Ind. 2024), and as we conduct our analysis, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant.” Id. at 685. [7] When First Merchants filed its motion for summary judgment, it designated the following evidence: the Pre-Suit Notice of default, the promissory note, the mortgage, the assignment of the mortgage to First Merchants, and multiple affidavits affirming the existence of the original promissory note, default on the l 2026We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Cave Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, 240 N.E.3d 681 , 684 (Ind. 2024), and as we conduct our analysis, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant.” Id. at 685. [7] When First Merchants filed its motion for summary judgment, it designated the following evidence: the Pre-Suit Notice of default, the promissory note, the mortgage, the assignment of the mortgage to First Merchants, and multiple affidavits affirming the existence of the original promissory note, default on the l | 1 | 1 |
Conroad Associates, L.P. v. Castleton Corner Owners Association, Inc.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., Conroad Assocs., L.P. v. Castleton Corner Owners Ass’n, Inc., 205 N.E.3d 1001 , 1007 (Ind. 2023) (holding orders are “void” if they are entered by trial court after filing of clerk’s record and impact the subject matter on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Horan v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Horan v. State, 682 N.E.2d 502, 507 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Lannan v. Stategreen1 sentence1996"The rationale behind this general rule, sometimes termed 'the propensity rule," is that the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs any probative value." Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334, 1337 (Ind.1992). 4 However, playing with a knife is not, in and of itself, a erime. | 1 | 1 |
McManus v. Stategreen1 sentence1996The basis of Clark's objection to this testimony is that "evidence of criminal activity other than that charged is inadmissible on the subject of guilt." McManus v. State, 433 N.E.2d 775, 778 (Ind.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Pillars v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Pillars v. State (1979), 180 Ind.App. 679 , 390 N.E.2d 679, 683 , trans. denied (appellate court unable to assume that trial court acted according to mandate of Rule 4). 1994See Pillars v. State (1979), 180 Ind.App. 679 , 390 N.E.2d 679, 683 , trans. denied (appellate court unable to assume that trial court acted according to mandate of Rule 4). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kenyatta Erkins v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 43A03-1605-PC-970 | February 27, 2017 Page 17 of 20 jurors on irrelevant concepts” and to expose the jury to “information that was not relevant and directly contradicted the chosen defense.” Id. [23] Clark’s defense at trial was that he recklessly caused the two-year-old child’s injuries by falling on her or dropping her on a coffee table. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence2012In spite of this testimony, the trial court denied Clark’s motion, noting its “routine practice of assigning several cases for jury trial on the same date, with noon the previous Friday as the ‘cut-off’ point at which the court assign[ed] the ‘number one’ case to be on the ‘ready docket’ and [continued] the other cases [] because of congestion.’” Id. 8 On appeal, our supreme court established the following standard for challenges to court congestion: Upon appellate review, a trial court’s finding of congestion will be presumed valid and need not be contemporaneously explained or documented by | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Raber v. State
green
1 sentence1994In holding that Clark's motion for discharge was properly denied, the majority expressly declines to follow the opinion of this court in Raber v. State (1998), Ind.App., 622 N.E.2d 541 , and concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it continued Clark's scheduled trial date of January 7, 19983, "[dJue to congestion of Court's calendar." Record at 12. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.