15 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2024See Lucas, 953 N.E.2d at 466 . | 1 | 1 |
Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnershipgreen1 sentence2014P’ship, 952 N.E.2d 872, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that a party waived its right to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment when it failed to object after the trial court canceled the scheduled hearing and ruled on the summary-judgment motion). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Ransomgreen1 sentence2013See Holley v. Holley, 659 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (where husband told wife two days before the hearing that he had no information about a hearing being scheduled, deliberately causing wife to fail to appear); Ransom v. Ransom, 531 N.E.2d 1171, 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (where neither the attorney nor his client were aware that a hearing had been scheduled). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Holleygreen1 sentence2013See Holley v. Holley, 659 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (where husband told wife two days before the hearing that he had no information about a hearing being scheduled, deliberately causing wife to fail to appear); Ransom v. Ransom, 531 N.E.2d 1171, 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (where neither the attorney nor his client were aware that a hearing had been scheduled). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children
green
2 sentences2017“Therefore, we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a showing of clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citing Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 449 ). [13] Mother cites to this court’s decision in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, in support of her contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1707-JT-1710 | December 18, 2017 Page 6 of 20 her request for a continuance.4 In Rowlett, “we acknowledge[d] that Father requested a con 2017“Therefore, we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a showing of clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citing Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 449 ). [13] Mother cites to this court’s decision in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, in support of her contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1707-JT-1710 | December 18, 2017 Page 6 of 20 her request for a continuance.4 In Rowlett, “we acknowledge[d] that Father requested a con | 5 | 2014–2019 |
Marriage of Akers v. Akers
neutral
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Anthony W. Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 695 . [15] Here, as in Caruthers, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the Rule 41(E) motion but failed to actually conduct a hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Parmeter v. Cass County Department of Child Services
green
2 sentences2017“Therefore, we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a showing of clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citing Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 449 ). [13] Mother cites to this court’s decision in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, in support of her contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1707-JT-1710 | December 18, 2017 Page 6 of 20 her request for a continuance.4 In Rowlett, “we acknowledge[d] that Father requested a con 2017“Therefore, we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a showing of clear and prejudicial abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citing Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 449 ). [13] Mother cites to this court’s decision in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, in support of her contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1707-JT-1710 | December 18, 2017 Page 6 of 20 her request for a continuance.4 In Rowlett, “we acknowledge[d] that Father requested a con | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Alkhalidi v. State
green
1 sentence2016On October 9, 2007, Alkhalidi sent a letter to the trial court stating that “on 9-20-2007 PD Skodinski advised me of the State plea offer to crimes ‘charges’ [sic] that was dismissed by the court on November 5, 1999[.]” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 374 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Daniels v. State
green
1 sentence2004Although the State cites Damiels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind.2001) for the proposition that a post-conviction petitioner does not have a federal or state constitutional right to representation by an attorney, we note that such decision was by a 3-2 majority. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Diaz v. Duncan
green
1 sentence1982Thus, in Diaz v. Duncan, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 991 , this court held a probate court judge has jurisdiction to continue a scheduled hearing on a final accounting in order to allow written objections to be filed. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Swaney v. State
green
2 sentences1978A similar contention was addressed by this Court in Swaney v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 114 , 374 N.E.2d 554 , where that defendant also failed to appear at a scheduled hearing resulting in a forfeiture of his bond. 1978A similar contention was addressed by this Court in Swaney v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 114 , 374 N.E.2d 554 , where that defendant also failed to appear at a scheduled hearing resulting in a forfeiture of his bond. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.