Gray v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a fenced area need not adjoin a building or completely surround a business premises to qualify as a “structure” under the Indiana burglary statute
• holding that a fenced area need not adjoin a building or completely surround a business premises to qualify as a “structure” un‐ der the Indiana burglary statute
• applying the statute to fenced-in car lot at an auto-repair shop
• where the defendant apparently climbed over a fence enclosing the lot of an auto repair shop
• where the defendant apparently climbed over a fence enclosing the lot of an auto repair 6 No. 16‐1635 shop

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Freshwater v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2006-09-12· cited 32×
• United States v. Perry
  Seventh Circuit· 2017-07-06· cited 16×
• Howard v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2007-09-20· cited 14×
• Gentry v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-10-13· cited 12×
• Calhoon v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-02-15· cited 5×
• Lee v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2008-02-26· cited 4×
• Luke Keys Carson v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2012-03-20
• Danny R. Aiman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2017-03-29

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• McCovens v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1989-06-09· cited 37×
• Joy v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1984-03-08· cited 33×
• Bailey v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2002-03-11· cited 19×
• Oeth v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2002-09-27· cited 17×
• Perdue v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1979-12-26· cited 11×
• Voss v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1984-10-25· cited 10×