status hearing in Indiana

2005Id.

2005Id.

2023Although the trial court did, on that date, set a status hearing for a date beyond the time limit, neither Rule 4(C) nor relevant case law indicates that there is a requirement to object to the untimely setting of anything other than a trial; thus, Hoback did not waive his discharge claim by failing to object to the order setting a status conference outside the one-year time period. [18] Given the deficient trial court record and the State’s failure to request that the trial court make adequate docket entries, we cannot attribute any of the delays Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-4

2023Although the trial court did, on that date, set a status hearing for a date beyond the time limit, neither Rule 4(C) nor relevant case law indicates that there is a requirement to object to the untimely setting of anything other than a trial; thus, Hoback did not waive his discharge claim by failing to object to the order setting a status conference outside the one-year time period. [18] Given the deficient trial court record and the State’s failure to request that the trial court make adequate docket entries, we cannot attribute any of the delays Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-4

2019Id.

2015Smith, 560 N.E.2d at 1260-1261 .

2010The Branhams, however, make no argument on appeal concerning lack of notice, and therefore, have waived any potential error in this regard. [5] The majority states, "The Branhams appropriately observe ... that the judgment debtor must assert an exemption at the appropriate time during the proceedings supplemental." Op. at 344 (citing, inter alia, Mims, 261 Ind. 591 , 307 N.E.2d 867 ).

2010The Branhams, however, make no argument on appeal concerning lack of notice, and therefore, have waived any potential error in this regard. [5] The majority states, "The Branhams appropriately observe ... that the judgment debtor must assert an exemption at the appropriate time during the proceedings supplemental." Op. at 344 (citing, inter alia, Mims, 261 Ind. 591 , 307 N.E.2d 867 ).

2000Although the trial court has broad discretion in conducting proceedings supplemental, Kirk, 585 N.E.2d at 1370 , this did not give the trial court judge the discretion to act as an advocate on behalf of the creditor, Storage Rentals.

1996In upholding the trial court’s grant of a Trial Rule 60(B)(3) motion to set aside default judgment, this court noted that the decision of plaintiffs attorney not to answer the direct inquiry showed a lack of good faith and “smackfed] of chicanery and unfair advantage.” Id. at 41 .

1992Appellant cites Bram v. United States (1897), 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 42 L.Ed. 568 , wherein Justice White traced the history of the general rule back into the English common law and discussed the status of the rule as it existed at that time in various jurisdictions throughout the United States including Indiana.

1992Appellant cites Bram v. United States (1897), 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 42 L.Ed. 568 , wherein Justice White traced the history of the general rule back into the English common law and discussed the status of the rule as it existed at that time in various jurisdictions throughout the United States including Indiana.

1992In the case of In re Shea (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 76 , in which Shea failed to file a claim for six years but repeatedly lied to the client that the case had been filed, this Court accepted a conditional agreement imposing a thirty day suspension.

1988Ratliff's concurring opinion in Hughes v. State (1987), Ind.App., 508 N.E.2d 1289 at 1305 . 4 .

1987Way, supra at 805 .

1984Smith v. Starke Circuit Court (1981), Ind., 417 N.E.2d 1115 .

1982Rather, custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner, (1977) 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 .

1982Rather, custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner, (1977) 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 .