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.
22 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 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 the Marriage of: Angela R. Bello v. Clement A. Bellogreen1 sentence2025See id. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Paternity of PSSgreen2 sentences2019See In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010) (holding that the propriety of a trial court’s order can only be challenged by way of a timely notice of appeal or a timely motion to correct error) (citing App. R. 9(A)(1)). 2019Indeed, it is well settled that “a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not a substitute for a direct appeal.” Id. (citing Gertz v. Estes, 922 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). “‘Trial Rule 60(B) motions address only the procedural, equitable grounds justifying relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the judgment.’” Id. (quoting Mid-West Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Gertz v. Estesgreen2 sentences2019Indeed, it is well settled that “a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not a substitute for a direct appeal.” Id. (citing Gertz v. Estes, 922 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). “‘Trial Rule 60(B) motions address only the procedural, equitable grounds justifying relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the judgment.’” Id. (quoting Mid-West Fed. 2019Indeed, it is well settled that “a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not a substitute for a direct appeal.” Id. (citing Gertz v. Estes, 922 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). “‘Trial Rule 60(B) motions address only the procedural, equitable grounds justifying relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the judgment.’” Id. (quoting Mid-West Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Loomis v. Ameritech Corp.green1 sentence2017See Loomis v. Ameritech Corp., 764 N.E.2d 658, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding argument waived for failure to cite authority or provide cogent argument), reh’g denied, trans. denied. [14] At the relevant time, Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) provided: “if any party files a timely motion to correct error, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the court’s ruling on such motion is noted in the Chronological Case Summary or thirty (30) days after the motion is deemed denied under Trial Rule 53.3, whichever occurs first.” 6 Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5) provides: “[u]nless the | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Estate of Brazillgreen1 sentence2016See App. R. 9(A) (providing that the thirty-day deadliné to file a notice of appeal is tolled “if any party files a timely motion to correct error”); Ind. Trial Rule 53.4(A) (providing that a motion to reconsider “shall not ... extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules”); Johnson v. Estate of Brazill, 917 N.E.2d 1235, 1239 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (explaining that “a motion to reconsider does not toll the time period within which an appellant must file a notice of appeal” (quoting Citizens Indus, Grp., 856 N.E.2d at 737 )). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R., N.R. v. K.G. and C.G.green1 sentence2016Since Milbank did not file a timely motion to correct error following the entry of final judgment on August 28, 2015, and did not- allege any grounds for relief from judgment, the trial court had no continuing jurisdiction over this case and its order on the motion to clarify had no effect, including restarting the clock for filing an appeal. [12] Milbank’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s final judgment forfeited its right to appeal absent “extraordinarily compelling reasons.” In re Adoption of Ú.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind.2014). | 1 | 1 |
Teaching Our Posterity Success, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Education and Indiana State Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2016We do not find any extraordinarily compelling reasons to consider this untimely appeal and Milbank does not offer any. 5 However, given our long-standing preference for deciding cases on the merits, Teaching Our Posterity Success, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of Edue., 20 N.E.3d 149, 154 (Ind.2014), and given that the motions panel. denied the motion to dismiss and the parties thereafter fully briefed' this case, we will proceed to consider the merits of the parties’ arguments. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1505-PC-477 | October 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8 face.” 805 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. 2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Wente v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Wente v. State, 440 N.E.2d 512, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.1982); T.R. 59(C) (“The motion to correct error, if any, shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after the entry of a final judgment is noted in the [CCS].”); App. R. 9 (“Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by P.C.R.2.”). | 1 | 1 |
McHenry v. Stategreen1 sentence2012McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Grubnich v. Rennergreen1 sentence2009See Grubnich v. Renner, 746 N.E.2d 111, 117 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ("Clarifications of the law apply retroactively."), trans. denied. 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Hunter v. State (1985), Ind. App., 477 N.E.2d 317 , 321 n. 3; Armstead v. State (1992), Ind. App., 596 N.E.2d 291, 293 . 1995See Hunter v. State (1985), Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 317 , 321 n. 3; Armstead v. State (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 291, 293 . | 1 | 1 |
Zellers v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Zellers v. State (1977) 266 Ind. 111 , 361 N.E.2d 143 . 1990See Zellers v. State (1977) 266 Ind. 111 , 361 N.E.2d 143 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2012However, that period is tolled "if any party files a timely motion to correct error." Id. 2012However, that period is tolled “if any party files a timely motion to correct error.” Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
NDF v. State
green
2 sentences2012The State correctly points out that "if any party files a timely motion to correct error, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the court's ruling on such motion is noted in the Chronological Case Summary or thirty (30) days after the motion is deemed denied under Trial Rule 53.3, whichever occurs first." Id. 2012The State correctly points out that “if any party files a timely motion to correct error, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the court’s ruling on such motion is noted in the Chronological Case Summary or thirty (30) days after the motion is deemed denied under Trial Rule 53.3, whichever occurs first.” Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Scheetz v. Scheetz
red
2 sentences1995Any matter known or discoverable within the period for filing a timely motion to correct error must be preserved for appeal by filing a TR. 59 motion rather than a TR. 60(B) motion. 509 N.E.2d at 845 . 1989Additionally, in Scheetz v. Scheetz (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 840, 845 , we © held a party is required to file a motion to correct error rather than file a T.R. 60(B) motion provided the matter was known or discoverable within the sixty day period for filing a timely motion to correct error. | 2 | 1989–1995 |
Fancher v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Citizens Industrial Group v. Heartland Gas Pipeline, LLC
green
1 sentence2016See App. R. 9(A) (providing that the thirty-day deadliné to file a notice of appeal is tolled “if any party files a timely motion to correct error”); Ind. Trial Rule 53.4(A) (providing that a motion to reconsider “shall not ... extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules”); Johnson v. Estate of Brazill, 917 N.E.2d 1235, 1239 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (explaining that “a motion to reconsider does not toll the time period within which an appellant must file a notice of appeal” (quoting Citizens Indus, Grp., 856 N.E.2d at 737 )). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ostertag v. Ostertag
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Armstead v. State
green
2 sentences1995See Hunter v. State (1985), Ind. App., 477 N.E.2d 317 , 321 n. 3; Armstead v. State (1992), Ind. App., 596 N.E.2d 291, 293 . 1995See Hunter v. State (1985), Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 317 , 321 n. 3; Armstead v. State (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 291, 293 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dobeski v. State
green
2 sentences1990The failure to raise an issue in a timely motion to correct error does not render the motion inadequate, Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 ; Dobeski v. State (1981) 275 Ind. 662 , 419 N.E.2d 753 ; Adams v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 406 , 386 N.E.2d 657 . 1990The failure to raise an issue in a timely motion to correct error does not render the motion inadequate, Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 ; Dobeski v. State (1981) 275 Ind. 662 , 419 N.E.2d 753 ; Adams v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 406 , 386 N.E.2d 657 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1990The failure to raise an issue in a timely motion to correct error does not render the motion inadequate, Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 ; Dobeski v. State (1981) 275 Ind. 662 , 419 N.E.2d 753 ; Adams v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 406 , 386 N.E.2d 657 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Adams v. State
green
2 sentences1990The failure to raise an issue in a timely motion to correct error does not render the motion inadequate, Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 ; Dobeski v. State (1981) 275 Ind. 662 , 419 N.E.2d 753 ; Adams v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 406 , 386 N.E.2d 657 . 1990The failure to raise an issue in a timely motion to correct error does not render the motion inadequate, Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 ; Dobeski v. State (1981) 275 Ind. 662 , 419 N.E.2d 753 ; Adams v. State (1979) 270 Ind. 406 , 386 N.E.2d 657 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Whitmire v. State
green
1 sentence1989In Whitmire v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 380 , the supreme court addressed this problem. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Houston v. Wireman
green
2 sentences1987Houston, supra ; Snider, supra . 1987Houston, supra; Snider, supra. It is the one seeking relief that has the burden of affirmatively establishing that it was not possible to raise the claimed errors by a timely T.R. 59 motion. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Snider v. Gaddis
green
2 sentences1987Houston, supra ; Snider, supra . 1987Houston, supra; Snider, supra. It is the one seeking relief that has the burden of affirmatively establishing that it was not possible to raise the claimed errors by a timely T.R. 59 motion. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Mathis v. Morehouse
green
1 sentence1982Mathis v. Morehouse, (1982) Ind. App., 433 N.E.2d 814, 816 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brandon v. State
green
2 sentences1978P.C. 2 § 1, a defendant is allowed [1, 2] to file a belated motion to correct error where: “ (a) no timely and adequate motion to correct error was filed for the defendant; (b) the failure to file a timely motion to correct error was not due to the fault of the defendant; and (c) the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated motion to correct error under this rule.” Although a certain amount of the delay between May 6, 1971, and April 8, 1977, must be attributed to the negligence of the Public Defender’s office, Brandon v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 177 , 340 N.E.2d 75 1978P.C. 2 § 1, a defendant is allowed [1, 2] to file a belated motion to correct error where: “ (a) no timely and adequate motion to correct error was filed for the defendant; (b) the failure to file a timely motion to correct error was not due to the fault of the defendant; and (c) the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated motion to correct error under this rule.” Although a certain amount of the delay between May 6, 1971, and April 8, 1977, must be attributed to the negligence of the Public Defender’s office, Brandon v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 177 , 340 N.E.2d 75 | 1 | 1978–1978 |