opportunity to correct error in Indiana

16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2012 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
PM Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smithgreen ind · 1978 · cited in 5 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1978–2012 2 sentences 2012Cf. P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, 268 Ind. 297, 301 , 375 N.E.2d 592, 594 (1978): 1151 The motion to correct error serves three purposes: (1) to present to the trial court an opportunity to correct error which occurs prior to the filing of the motion; (2) to develop those points which will be raised on appeal by counsel; and (3) to inform the opposing party concerning the points which will be raised on appeal so as to provide that party an opportunity to respond in the trial court and on appeal. 4 . 2012Cf. P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, 268 Ind. 297, 301 , 375 N.E.2d 592, 594 (1978): 1151 The motion to correct error serves three purposes: (1) to present to the trial court an opportunity to correct error which occurs prior to the filing of the motion; (2) to develop those points which will be raised on appeal by counsel; and (3) to inform the opposing party concerning the points which will be raised on appeal so as to provide that party an opportunity to respond in the trial court and on appeal. 4 .	1	5
Jackson v. Stategreen ind · 1991 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994Cf. Jackson, 575 N.E.2d at 620-21 (upholding conviction but stating that "reversible error may have followed had an objection to the instruction been overruled and a tender of a proper instruction been refused"). 1994Cf. Jackson, 575 N.E.2d at 620-21 (upholding conviction but stating that "reversible error may have followed had an objection to the instruction been overruled and a tender of a proper instruction been refused").	1	1
Love v. HARRISgreen indctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978See Love v. Harris (1957), 127 Ind. App. 505 , 143 N.E.2d 450 . 1978See Love v. Harris (1957), 127 Ind. App. 505 , 143 N.E.2d 450 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (32)

Case	Cited	Years
People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley green ill · 1897 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record.	2	1905–1922
Poehlmann v. Kennedy neutral · 1874 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1905Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 ; People, ex rel., v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 . 17.	2	1905–1922
Murphy v. Teter neutral ind · 1877 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1905Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 ; People, ex rel., v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 . 17.	2	1905–1922
Ricketts v. Dorrell neutral ind · 1877 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1905Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 ; People, ex rel., v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 . 17.	2	1905–1922
Hay v. State ex rel. McClanrahan neutral ind · 1877 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1905Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 ; People, ex rel., v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 . 17.	2	1905–1922
Greer v. State green ind · 1994 1 sentence 2002Chief Justice Shepard, writing for four justices of the Court stated, “Where the defendant objects at trial, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct the instruction, an erroneous instruction on the elements of attempt yields an automatic reversal.” Id.	1	2002–2002
Booker v. State green indctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2002And as this court stated in Booker , “a jury instruction on attempted murder should make no mention of the mens rea of ‘knowingly.’ ” 741 N.E.2d at 751 .	1	2002–2002
Koziol v. Lake County Plan Commission neutral indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Board green indctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Lake County Title Company v. Root Enterprises, Inc. neutral indctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
State v. Kushner neutral indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Davis v. Davis green indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Easley v. Williams green indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
State v. Deprez green ind · 1973 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Miller v. Mansfield green indctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Wyss v. Wyss green indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Minnette v. Lloyd neutral indctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation neutral indctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Campbell v. Mattingly neutral indctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317 1978To understand the procedural dilemma which the parties faced, one must begin with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413 , 296 N.E.2d 120 , and its progeny. 1 See, Campbell v. Mattingly, (1976) 168 Ind. App. 651 , 344 N.E.2d 858 ; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc., (1975) 167 Ind. App. 559 , 339 N.E.2d 103 ; Minnette v. Lloyd, (1975) 166 Ind. App. 1 , 333 N.E.2d 791 ; Miller v. Mansfield, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 583 , 330 N.E.2d 113 ; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., (1975) 164 Ind. App. 56 , 326 N.E.2d 599 ; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, (1974) 162 Ind. App. 28 , 317	1	1978–1978
Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson green ind · 1971 2 sentences 1974Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson (1971), 256 Ind. 674 , 271 N.E.2d 448 ; Moore v. Spann (1973), 156 Ind. App. 33 , 298 N.E.2d 490 (rehearing denied, 302 N.E.2d 825 ). 1974Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson (1971), 256 Ind. 674 , 271 N.E.2d 448 ; Moore v. Spann (1973), 156 Ind. App. 33 , 298 N.E.2d 490 (rehearing denied, 302 N.E.2d 825 ).	1	1974–1974
Moore v. Spann neutral indctapp · 1973 2 sentences 1974Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson, (1971) 256 Ind. 674 , 271 N.E.2d 448 ; Moore v. Spann, (1973) Ind. Ct. App., 298 N.E.2d 490 (rehearing denied, Ind. Ct. App., 302 N.E.2d 825 ). 1974Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson (1971), 256 Ind. 674 , 271 N.E.2d 448 ; Moore v. Spann (1973), 156 Ind. App. 33 , 298 N.E.2d 490 (rehearing denied, 302 N.E.2d 825 ).	1	1974–1974
Shneider v. State neutral ind · 1942 2 sentences 1965Shneider v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 28 , 40 N. E. 2d 322 ; Siberry v. The State (1892), 133 Ind. 677 , 33 N. E. 681 . 1965Shneider v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 28 , 40 N. E. 2d 322 ; Siberry v. The State (1892), 133 Ind. 677 , 33 N. E. 681 .	1	1965–1965
Siberry v. State green ind · 1893 2 sentences 1965Shneider v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 28 , 40 N. E. 2d 322 ; Siberry v. The State (1892), 133 Ind. 677 , 33 N. E. 681 . 1965Shneider v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 28 , 40 N. E. 2d 322 ; Siberry v. The State (1892), 133 Ind. 677 , 33 N. E. 681 .	1	1965–1965
Alley v. State ex rel. Blenzinger neutral ind · 1881 1 sentence 1942Blenzinger (1881) 76 Ind. 94 , all of the authorities are uniform in holding; that in assigning a cause for a new trial under either of these statutory specifications the particular cause complained of must be specified.	1	1942–1942
Borror v. Carrier neutral indctapp · 1905 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record.	1	1922–1922
Douglas v. Indianapolis & Northwestern Traction Co. neutral indctapp · 1906 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record.	1	1922–1922
Zink v. Zink neutral indctapp · 1914 2 sentences 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record. 1922Ricketts v. Dorrell (1877), 59 Ind. 427 ; Murphy v. Teter, Admr. (1877), 56 Ind. 545 ; Hay v. State, ex rel. (1877), 58 Ind. 337 ; People v. Kipley (1897), 167 Ill. 638 , 48 N. E. 688 ; Borror v. Carrier (1905), 34 Ind. App. 353 , 73 N. E. 123 ; Douglas v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1906), 37 Ind. App. 332 , 76 N. E. 892 ; Zink v. Zink (1914), 56 Ind. App. 677 , 106 N. E. 381 ; Poehlmann v. Kennedy (1874), 48 Cal. 201 . , No error appears in the record.	1	1922–1922
Ketcham v. Brazil Block Coal Co. green ind · 1883	1	1895–1895
Morrison v. State green ind · 1881	1	1892–1892
Coble v. Eltzroth neutral ind · 1890	1	1892–1892
Leach v. Ackerman neutral indctapp · 1891	1	1892–1892
Mainard v. Reider green indctapp · 1891	1	1892–1892

Where else courts name it

TX 263 (1917–2026) IL 104 (1893–2026) WA 70 (1915–2026) PA 63 (1966–2026) MI 57 (1883–2026) MO 54 (1878–2024) NH 53 (1988–2023) CA 35 (1930–2023) UT 33 (2004–2019) FL 29 (1986–2025) AR 23 (1980–2026) IA 21 (1868–2020) OR 18 (1939–2026) OH 17 (1985–2020) LA 16 (1927–2010) IN 16 (1892–2012) OK 15 (1914–2019) WI 13 (1984–2025) TN 12 (1998–2026) NM 12 (1950–2025) MS 11 (1997–2009) DC 11 (1968–2025) MT 10 (1896–2016) NY 10 (1981–2018) MD 7 (2004–2019) MA 7 (1999–2025) AZ 7 (1968–2008) KY 6 (1885–1961) AL 6 (1981–2011) WV 6 (1969–2024) SD 4 (1985–2016) CO 4 (1897–2011) NV 4 (1996–2017) NJ 3 (1984–2014) VT 3 (1933–2003) NC 2 (1991–2003) ID 2 (1974–1981) MN 2 (2002–2011) GA 2 (1978–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check