Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re JCgreen1 sentence2018In re J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848, 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences1986In Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , the Supreme Court considered the specific standard of proof that the state must meet to terminate the rights of parents to care, custody, and management of their child and held due process requires that before parental rights may be terminated, the state must demonstrate the parents are unfit by at least clear and convincing evidence. 1986In Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , the Supreme Court considered the specific standard of proof that the state must meet to terminate the rights of parents to care, custody, and management of their child and held due process requires that before parental rights may be terminated, the state must demonstrate the parents are unfit by at least clear and convincing evidence. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
1 sentence2025Given Father’s appearance at the guardianship hearing, we conclude that the risk of error was minimal and that Father failed to demonstrate that he was denied “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Grauman v. Chambers
neutral
2 sentences1991In Grauman v. Chambers (1948) 122 Mont. 31 , 198 P.2d 629 , the would-be ward complained, correctly, that she was given no notice of the time and place of the guardianship hearing and consequently did not appear. 1991In Grauman v. Chambers (1948) 122 Mont. 31 , 198 P.2d 629 , the would-be ward complained, correctly, that she was given no notice of the time and place of the guardianship hearing and consequently did not appear. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.