green
Positive treatment
Issue: absurdity doctrineIN ↗
Issue: find waiverIN ↗
Issue: phrase expresses requirementIN ↗
Issue: lifetime requirementIN ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
39.3 score
“both the existence of constitutional rights and the requirements for waiving them are legal questions we review de novo.”
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Byron D. Harris, Jr. v. State of Indiana
both the existence of constitutional rights and the requirements for waiving them are legal questions we review de novo.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley W Hobbs v. State of Indiana
Indeed, “the absurdity doctrine [is] ‘strong medicine’ that ‘defeats even the plain meaning of statutes.’” R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1042 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Calvin v. State, 87 N.E.3d 474, 477 (Ind. 2017)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D W v. State of Indiana
Moreover, as we previously discussed in T.D., “[b]y permitting a court to find waiver in only these limited circumstances, ‘the [Juvenile Waiver Statute] affords juveniles with greater rights than the Constitution requires.’” T.D., 219 N.E.3d at 725 (quoting R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1043 (Ind. 2018)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lei Gamble v. State of Indiana
In response to our Supreme Court’s holding in Lewis, the General Assembly codified Indiana Code Section 31-32-5-1, which governs the waiver of rights guaranteed to a juvenile, and currently provides, in relevant part: Any rights guaranteed to a child under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Indiana, or any other law may be waived only: ***** (2) by the child’s custodial parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem if: (A) that person knowingly and voluntarily waives the right; (B) that person has no interest adverse to the child; (C) meaningful con…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gage Peters v. Dennis J Quakenbush, II
To apply the statute in that manner, when Peters visited Florida for only one week, is simply absurd. [28] Under the absurdity doctrine, we “give a statute ‘its obvious intended effect despite its plain text.’” Estabrook v. Mazak Corp., 140 N.E.3d 830 , 836 (Ind. 2020) (quoting R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1042 (Ind. 2018)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T D v. State of Indiana
By permitting a court to find waiver in only Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-110 | October 6, 2023 Page 5 of 13 these limited circumstances, “the statute affords juveniles with greater rights than the Constitution requires.” R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1043 (Ind. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
K.C.G. v. State of Indiana
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
First, “the Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-JV-263 | November 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 text must impose an outcome no reasonable person could intend”, R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1042 (Ind. 2018); and, second, a court must be able to fix the resulting absurdity by “changing or supplying a particular word or phrase whose inclusion or omission was obviously a technical or ministerial error”.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley A. Estabrook v. Mazak Corporation
We apply the doctrine to give a statute “its obvious intended effect despite its plain text.” R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1042 (Ind. 2018).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A.M. v. State of Indiana
R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1040 (Ind. 2018); see generally Bridges v. State, 260 Ind. 651 , 299 N.E.2d 616 (1973); Ind. Code §§ 31-32-2-2 , -4-1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Edgerock Development, LLC v. C.H. Garmong & Son Inc
See R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037, 1042 (Ind. 2018) (explaining that the absurdity doctrine applies only when a contrary reading “truly is absurd, and not merely unwise or unsound”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the MATTER OF: Anna D. SAAR
Sep 21, 2018.
106 N.E.3d 1037
Published Order Approving Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 (12.1)(b), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a \Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline\" stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below.
Discipline: The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. The Court | Stipulated Facts: \"Client\" signed a representation agreement with \"Law Firm\" in a personal injury matter. The agreement called for a contingent attorney fee of 35% if the case was resolved without trial and 45% plus expenses if the case was resolved with trial. The agreement also included a provision under which Law Firm
All Justices concur.