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.
20 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
E.P. v. Marion County Office of Family & Childrengreen2 sentences2019“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Id. (citing E.P. v. Marion Co. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). 2012“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’ ” Id. (citing E.P. v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). | 9 | 9 |
In Re Termination of Mmgreen2 sentences2012“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” In re M.M., 733 N.E.2d 6, 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing E.P. v. Marion Cnty. 2012“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” In re M.M., 733 N.E.2d 6, 10 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing E.P. v. Marion Cnty. | 5 | 11 |
B.T. v. Clark County Division of Family & Childrengreen2 sentences2007This court has held that “[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Thompson v. Clark County Div. Of Family & Children, 791 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). 2005We have held that "[the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Thompson v. Clark County Div. Of Family & Children, 791 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)), trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
2 sentences2011Instead, "the phrase expresses the requirement of `fundamental fairness,' a requirement whose meaning can be as opaque as its importance is lofty." Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 24 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 . 2011Instead, "the phrase expresses the requirement of `fundamental fairness,' a requirement whose meaning can be as opaque as its importance is lofty." Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 24 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 . | 6 | 1982–2011 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2005We have held that "[the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Thompson v. Clark County Div. Of Family & Children, 791 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)), trans. denied. 2005We have held that "[the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Thompson v. Clark County Div. Of Family & Children, 791 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Ap v. Pcofc
green
2 sentences2001To support their argument that their due process rights were violated, the Halberstadts cite In re A.P., 734 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied. 2001To support their argument that their due process rights were violated, the Halberstadts cite In re A.P., 734 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Hamilton v. State
green
2 sentences2020Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037 (Ind. 2018). [17] “Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Hamilton, 864 N.E.2d at 1110 . 2020This Court has held that “[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Robert Scott Hilligoss v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037 (Ind. 2018). [17] “Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Hamilton, 864 N.E.2d at 1110 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Saar
green
1 sentence2020Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); R.R. v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1037 (Ind. 2018). [17] “Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Hamilton, 864 N.E.2d at 1110 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re TW
green
1 sentence2019“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Id. (citing E.P. v. Marion Co. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lawson v. Marion County Office of Family & Children
green
1 sentence2012“Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase expresses the requirement of ‘fundamental fairness.’” Id. (quoting In re M.M., 733 N.E.2d 6, 10 (Ind. 4 Ct. App. 2000)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.