Cochran v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a warrant or exigent circumstances are not required for a blood test to be admissible where the defendant consented to the test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hannoy v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2003-06-10· cited 40×
• Howard B. Gutenstein v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2016-08-31· cited 11×
• Newell v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2008-09-04
• Kriss Eugene Bauman, II v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2023-04-19

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Schmerber v. California
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-20· cited 6,067×
• Price v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1993-11-01· cited 209×
• State v. Hoovler
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1996-08-07· cited 33×
• Brown v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2001-03-09· cited 20×
• Johnson v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1983-06-23· cited 16×
• Justice v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1990-04-16· cited 14×
• Griswold v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2000-02-18· cited 6×
• Spriggs v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1996-10-04· cited 4×