14 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1874–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barany v. Stategreen2 sentences2020A fundamental error is such a gross error that it renders a fair trial “‘impossible.’” Hardley, 905 N.E.2d at 402 (quoting Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind. 1995)). 2020Rather, a fundamental error is such a gross error that it renders any possibility of a fair trial “‘impossible.’” Hardley, 905 N.E.2d at 402 (quoting Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind. 1995)). [6] Deputy Ranke testified that had been familiar with Luther previous to March 22, 2019, testimony that Luther claims prevented him from receiving a fair trial. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Young v. State , 249 Ind. 286 , 289, 231 N.E.2d 797 , 799 (1967) (declaring that an appellate court "cannot ignore a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record," as "one is not to be deprived of his liberty because of carelessness on the part of the trial judge and of defense counsel in failing to call to the attention of this Court a gross error which offends our concepts of criminal justice") (citing Wilson v. State , 222 Ind. 63 , 66, 51 N.E.2d 848 , 850 (1943) ). 2019See Young v. State , 249 Ind. 286 , 289, 231 N.E.2d 797 , 799 (1967) (declaring that an appellate court "cannot ignore a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record," as "one is not to be deprived of his liberty because of carelessness on the part of the trial judge and of defense counsel in failing to call to the attention of this Court a gross error which offends our concepts of criminal justice") (citing Wilson v. State , 222 Ind. 63 , 66, 51 N.E.2d 848 , 850 (1943) ). | 1 | 4 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Young v. State , 249 Ind. 286 , 289, 231 N.E.2d 797 , 799 (1967) (declaring that an appellate court "cannot ignore a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record," as "one is not to be deprived of his liberty because of carelessness on the part of the trial judge and of defense counsel in failing to call to the attention of this Court a gross error which offends our concepts of criminal justice") (citing Wilson v. State , 222 Ind. 63 , 66, 51 N.E.2d 848 , 850 (1943) ). 2019See Young v. State , 249 Ind. 286 , 289, 231 N.E.2d 797 , 799 (1967) (declaring that an appellate court "cannot ignore a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record," as "one is not to be deprived of his liberty because of carelessness on the part of the trial judge and of defense counsel in failing to call to the attention of this Court a gross error which offends our concepts of criminal justice") (citing Wilson v. State , 222 Ind. 63 , 66, 51 N.E.2d 848 , 850 (1943) ). | 1 | 3 |
Jewell v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Rather, a fundamental error is such a gross error that it renders any possibility of a fair trial “impossible.” Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Fletchergreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Matter of Fletcher, 694 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind.1998) (two year exclusion from pro hac vice admission for violation of Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct while so admitted). | 1 | 1 |
Stanley v. Supervisors of Albanygreen2 sentences1909So in Stanley v. Supervisors, etc. (1887), 121 U. S. 535 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1234, 30 L. 1909So in Stanley v. Supervisors, etc. (1887), 121 U. S. 535 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1234, 30 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hardley v. State
green
2 sentences2020A fundamental error is such a gross error that it renders a fair trial “‘impossible.’” Hardley, 905 N.E.2d at 402 (quoting Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind. 1995)). 2020Rather, a fundamental error is such a gross error that it renders any possibility of a fair trial “‘impossible.’” Hardley, 905 N.E.2d at 402 (quoting Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind. 1995)). [6] Deputy Ranke testified that had been familiar with Luther previous to March 22, 2019, testimony that Luther claims prevented him from receiving a fair trial. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Whitaker v. State
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 428 . [23] Whitaker is distinguishable from the instant case for several reasons. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Clematine Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 1098 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Beeman v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. (citing Beeman, 232 Ind. at 690 , 115 N.E.2d at 922 ). 2007Id. (citing Beeman, 232 Ind. at 690 , 115 N.E.2d at 922 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Guthrie v. Carpenter
neutral
1 sentence1927Guthrie v. Carpenter (1904), 162 Ind. 417, 420-422 , 70 N- E. 486; Hubbard v. Reilly (1921), 51 Ind. App. 19, 25 , 98 N. E. 886 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Hubbard v. Reilly
green
2 sentences1927Guthrie v. Carpenter (1904), 162 Ind. 417, 420-422 , 70 N- E. 486; Hubbard v. Reilly (1921), 51 Ind. App. 19, 25 , 98 N. E. 886 . 1927Guthrie v. Carpenter (1904), 162 Ind. 417, 420-422 , 70 N- E. 486; Hubbard v. Reilly (1921), 51 Ind. App. 19, 25 , 98 N. E. 886 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Crabb v. Atwood & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1874It was said by the Supreme Court in Bates v. DeHaven., 10 Ind., 322 , that “evidence of the mutual acts of the parties in reference to the fulfilment of the contract after it was entered into, was properly admitted to show what their intention and understanding was in the use of language otherwise somewhat obscure. | 1 | 1874–1874 |
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.