14 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1897–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of St. John v. STATE BD. OF TAX COM'RSgreen1 sentence2024John v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 698 N.E.2d 399, 400 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (regarding the retroactive aspect of the correction of error tax appeal process). | 1 | 1 |
Muir Woods, Inc. v. Joseph P. O'Connor, Assessor of Marion Countygreen2 sentences2015(Compare Pet’r Br. at 6-7 with Muir Woods, 36 N.E.3d at 1211 , 2015 WL 3814552, at *3 .) Muir Woods explains, however, that the, language of Indiana Code § 6-l.l-15-4(a) requires the Indiana Board to hold a hearing only when the merits are considered for a correction of error, not when determining a preliminary procedural issue. 2015(Compare Pet’r Br. at 6-7 with Muir Woods, 36 N.E.3d at 1211 , 2015 WL 3814552, at *3 .) Muir Woods explains, however, that the, language of Indiana Code § 6-l.l-15-4(a) requires the Indiana Board to hold a hearing only when the merits are considered for a correction of error, not when determining a preliminary procedural issue. | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See Foster v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 696 ; Perry v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 270 , We see no error in the manner in which the prosecuting attorney handled the correction of the error or in the trial court's permitting him to do so. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. State
neutral
2 sentences1981Ford v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 676 .” Id. at 771 . 1981Ford v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 676 .” Id. at 771 . | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Stidham v. Whelchel
green
1 sentence2000(Br. of Appellant at 13; Reply Br. of Appellant at 10, 16.) While a judgment entered where there has been no service of process is void for want of personal jurisdiction, Stidham, 698 N.E.2d at 1155 n. 3, Nickels never makes this a part of his argument. [5] In his reply brief, Nickels concedes this point stating: While Nickels agrees that one who does not object in the trial court generally does not preserve error for appeal, fundamental error may lie even when no objection has been made in the trial court, if the correction of the error on appeal would preserve the appellant's rights to due p | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Barth, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
green
1 sentence1998Sea Barth, 699 N.E.2d at 806 -07 n. 19. 3 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Perry v. State
green
1 sentence1990See Foster v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 696 ; Perry v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 270 , We see no error in the manner in which the prosecuting attorney handled the correction of the error or in the trial court's permitting him to do so. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Starks v. State
green
1 sentence1989Starks v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 46 ; Haymaker v. State (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 83 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Haymaker v. State
green
1 sentence1989Starks v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 46 ; Haymaker v. State (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 83 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Short v. State
green
1 sentence1984Short v. State, (1982) Ind., 443 N.E.2d 298 ; Wilburn v. State, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1098 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Wilburn v. State
green
1 sentence1984Short v. State, (1982) Ind., 443 N.E.2d 298 ; Wilburn v. State, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1098 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Sumpter v. State
green
2 sentences1976The result reached by the majority amounts to a correction of that error and an adoption of my dissenting opinion at 306 N.E.2d 95 at 106 as the logical answer and the rule of this case. 1976The result reached by the majority amounts to a correction of that error and an adoption of my dissenting opinion at 306 N.E.2d 95 at 106 as the logical answer and the rule of this case. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover
neutral
2 sentences1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . 1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding
neutral
2 sentences1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . 1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Downey v. National Exchange Bank
neutral
2 sentences1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . 1962Marion Manufacturing Co. v. Harding (1900), 155 Ind. 648 , 58 N. E. 194 ; Downey v. The National Exchange Bank (1911), 52 Ind. App. 672 ; 96 N. E. 403 ; Denny, Rec. v. Scoonover (1926), 93 Ind. App. 118 , 153 N. E. 779 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Obie v. State
green
2 sentences1961“The function of a writ of error coram nobis is limited to the correction of an error of fact not appearing on the record and lies to the same court, in order that it may correct .the error which, it is presumed, would not have been committed had the facts in the first instance been brought to its notice.” Obie v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 142, 146 , 106 N. E. 2d 452 . 4. 1961“The function of a writ of error coram nobis is limited to the correction of an error of fact not appearing on the record and lies to the same court, in order that it may correct .the error which, it is presumed, would not have been committed had the facts in the first instance been brought to its notice.” Obie v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 142, 146 , 106 N. E. 2d 452 . 4. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Fluty v. State
green
2 sentences1952Fluty v. State (1947), 224 Ind. 652, 660 , and cases there cited, 71 N. E. 2d 565 . *146 The function of a writ of error coram nobis is limited to the correction of an error of fact not appearing on the record and lies to the same court, in order that it may correct the error which, it is presumed, would not have been committed had the facts in the first instance been brought to its notice. 1952Fluty v. State (1947), 224 Ind. 652, 660 , and cases there cited, 71 N. E. 2d 565 . *146 The function of a writ of error coram nobis is limited to the correction of an error of fact not appearing on the record and lies to the same court, in order that it may correct the error which, it is presumed, would not have been committed had the facts in the first instance been brought to its notice. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Boyer v. Robertson
green
1 sentence1897The fact that the case had once before been in this court, 144 Ind. 604 , with a reversal in favor of this appellant, and that this court had suggested the error in the description of the four-acre tract, seems not to have availed to secure a correction of the error, or to elicit from the appellees such attention to the case in this court as would aid us in considering the question involved. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.