Dean v. Pelham, 901 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Dean v. Pelham, 901 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · …move cases along and to provide the defendant with a timely trial, not to create a mechanism to avoid trial. at p. 655 ⚠ not in text
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Daniel R. Collar II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (indctapp, 2020-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniel R. Collar II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas King v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 652 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Troy Crim v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Crim concedes that this 9 did not make the requisite showing when he did not cite any factual basis or evidence for his contention the delay was not due to the congestion of the court calendar), trans. denied; cf. Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that defendant’s submission of case summaries showed that, on each date the trial court issued its congestion order, the order was inaccurate at the time the order was issued), trans. denied.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deshawn Grigsby v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
R. 4, which is “‘to move cases along . . ., not to create a mechanism to avoid trial.’” Id. (quoting Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Black
Ind. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 652 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied.
cited Cited as authority (rule) AK v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 655 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied.
cited Cited as authority (rule) A.K. v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 655 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trams. denied.
examined Cited as authority (rule) J.D. v. State (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
The objective of both is to "move cases along and to provide the defendant with a timely trial, not to create a mechanism to avoid trial." Dean, 901 N.E.2d at 655 (referring to Criminal Rule 4(C)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) JD v. State (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
The objective of both is to "move cases along and to provide the defendant with a timely trial, not to create a mechanism to avoid trial." Dean, 901 N.E.2d at 655 (referring to Criminal Rule 4(C)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Payton v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
R. 4, le., "to move cases along ..., not to ereate a mechanism to avoid trial." Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648, 655 (Ind.Ct.App.2009).
discussed Cited "see" Kersee Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (no error in denying motion for discharge; trial court set a trial date outside the one-year period, but Dean failed to object), trans. denied.
discussed Cited "see" Calvin Lowery v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (defendant must object to a trial date set after a Criminal Rule 4 deadline and move for discharge or waive the claim), trans. denied. 2.
discussed Cited "see" Jason Frye v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dean v. State, 901 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that evidence of defendant’s assault of informant was admissible to show defendant’s guilty knowledge or cognizance of guilt).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosemary DEAN, Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
William T. PELHAM, Personal Representative of the Estate of William McNatt, Appellee-Respondent
73A01-0806-CV-306.
Indiana Court of Appeals.
Feb 27, 2009.
901 N.E.2d 648
Amanda O. Blackketter, Robert T. Tho-py, McNeely, Stephenson, Thopy & Har-roid, Shelbyville, IN, Attorney for Appellant., Jarrell B. Hammond, Sonia C. Das, Lewis Wagner, LLP, Robert P. Thomas, Thomas Szostak Thomas & Nugent, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
Friedlander, Darden, Barnes.
Published

OPINION ON REHEARING

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

In a memorandum decision, which we later published upon the request of the Appellant, Rosemary Dean, we reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, William T. Pel-ham, Personal Representative of the Estate of William MceNatt (the Estate), and directed that summary judgment be entered in favor of Dean. The Estate filed a petition for rehearing requesting that we reconsider our decision. We grant the Estate's petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that we analyzed the designated evidence under the appropriate summary judgment standard of review, but used imprecise language in stating our conclusion. We hereby restate our conclusion in terms of the appropriate standard: The designated evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to William's intent with regard to Dean's survivorship rights. We affirm our opinion in all other respects.

DARDEN, J., and BARNES, J., concur.