Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-7 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As added by P.L.181-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.166-1999, SEC.2. Repealed by P.L.158-2013, SEC.430.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2011–2017 · leading case: Jewell v. State, 957 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jewell v. State, 957 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 2× “We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ contrary conclusion.”
Mark Benner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 35-42-2-7 (emphasis supplied). [18] Because the statute set forth the definition of “professional relationship” and makes it a crime for a person who “has or had a professional relationship with a child” to use that relationship to engage in sexual activity with that…”
Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 35-42-4-3(b); and Counts IV-VII, tattooing a minor, Class A misdemeanors, I.C. § 35-42-2-7(c). We affirm. ISSUES Siers raises seven issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the following five issues: (1) Whether Siers waived his constitutional right to be present…”
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-7(c): 2 cases
Jewell v. State, 957 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2011). “We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ contrary conclusion.”
Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 35-42-4-3(b); and Counts IV-VII, tattooing a minor, Class A misdemeanors, I.C. § 35-42-2-7(c). We affirm. ISSUES Siers raises seven issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the following five issues: (1) Whether Siers waived his constitutional right to be present…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.