15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Langley v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Res Judicata and Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) [28] Our supreme court has observed that post-conviction relief is “not. . . inten[ded]. . . to provide a means whereby one convicted could repeatedly re- litigate claims of improper conviction, or could unqualifiedly, upon a legitimate waiver of the right to appeal. . . raise an untimely challenge directed at some aspect of the proceedings against him.” Langley v. State, 256 Ind. 199, 203 , 267 N.E.2d 538, 540 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Bunch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. 2002) (emphasis added). 2019Res Judicata and Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) [28] Our supreme court has observed that post-conviction relief is “not. . . inten[ded]. . . to provide a means whereby one convicted could repeatedly re- litigate claims of improper conviction, or could unqualifiedly, upon a legitimate waiver of the right to appeal. . . raise an untimely challenge directed at some aspect of the proceedings against him.” Langley v. State, 256 Ind. 199, 203 , 267 N.E.2d 538, 540 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Bunch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. 2002) (emphasis added). | 4 | 8 |
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.C. (Minor Child), and C.G.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Servicesgreen1 sentence2019See id. at 1267 . | 1 | 1 |
Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014“Issues available but not raised on direct appeal are waived.” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 718 (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weigand Construction Co. v. Stephens Fabrication, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2012Id. at 227-28 . 2012Id. at 227-28 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Adrian Durden v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable on appeal, if it “made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. [20] Because Father failed to timely object to the date of the fact-finding hearing, he waived his appeal on the issue of an untimely hearing. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bunch v. State
green
1 sentence2019Res Judicata and Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) [28] Our supreme court has observed that post-conviction relief is “not. . . inten[ded]. . . to provide a means whereby one convicted could repeatedly re- litigate claims of improper conviction, or could unqualifiedly, upon a legitimate waiver of the right to appeal. . . raise an untimely challenge directed at some aspect of the proceedings against him.” Langley v. State, 256 Ind. 199, 203 , 267 N.E.2d 538, 540 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Bunch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. 2002) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Estate of Penzenik v. Penz Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003But we also stated that "[ulnlike the general claim statute, under which an untimely claim is forever barred, the consequence of a failure to file a timely claim under IC 29-1-14-21 is that the claimant must proceed against the distributees, rather than the estate." Penzenik I, 749 N.E.2d at 64-65 . 2 While Pengenik I was pending in the trial court, the Estate filed a complaint against Penz for breach of fiduciary duty and minority shareholder oppression. 2003But we also stated that "[u]nlike the general claim statute, under which an untimely claim is forever barred, the consequence of a failure to file a timely claim under IC XX-X-XX-XX is that the claimant must proceed against the distributees, rather than the estate." Penzenik I, 749 N.E.2d at 64-65 . [2] While Penzenik I was pending in the trial court, the Estate filed a complaint against Penz for breach of fiduciary duty and minority shareholder oppression. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Estate of Baker v. Lahrman
green
1 sentence2001Estate of Baker v. Lahrman, 505 N.E.2d 104 , 105 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Owens
neutral
1 sentence1985In attempting then to correlate the role of the post conviction remedy rules with those afforded by direct appeal and to define their appropriate use in a challenge directed at a criminal proceeding, it would seem obvious that this court has a vested interest in guarding against a perversion of the rules through improper invocation of their protections or a prostitution of the spirit of criminal justice through sanctioned 'multiappeals' thought to be afforded." Id. at 203, 267 N.E.2d at 540 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.