Indiana Supreme Court· 12/3/1998

Brown v. State

Citations

703 N.E.2d 1010
1998 Ind. LEXIS 601
1999 WL 2662

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

observing that the record need not include an \explicit finding\ of manifest necessity, that it need only \adequately disclose\ the basis for the trial court's decision, and that extensive argument by counsel may be used to inform the reviewing court of the trial court's decision
observing that the record need not include an \explicit finding\ of manifest necessity, that it need only \adequately disclose\ the basis for the trial court's decision, and that extensive argument by counsel may be used to inform the reviewing court of the trial court's decision
where the trial court does not make an explicit finding as to whether a serious evidentiary dispute existed, “we will presume that the trial court followed controlling precedent and applied” the law
where the trial court does not make an explicit finding as to whether a serious evidentiary dispute existed, “we will presume that the trial court followed controlling precedent and applied” the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Dickson, Selby, Shepard, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

64 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.