Zanders v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court on appeal will not interpret a statute in a manner that renders any part of it meaningless or superfluous
• \we do not interpret a statute that is facially clear and unambiguous.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hampton v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-02-08· cited 28×
• Maroney v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2006-06-26· cited 15×
• A.J.R. v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2014-01-23· cited 13×
• Koehlinger v. State Lottery Commission of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-09-07· cited 11×
• Lovitt v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2009-11-04· cited 8×
• A.J.R. v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2014-01-23· cited 6×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2001-05-09· cited 82×
• Saylor v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2002-03-20· cited 61×
• Skrzypczak v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1996-07-16· cited 33×
• Vestal v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2002-08-19· cited 23×
• Vestal v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2001-03-07· cited 15×
• State Ex Rel. Williams v. Ryan
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1986-04-08· cited 6×
• Bennett v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1996-07-11· cited 2×