Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Breeze v. Breezegreen2 sentences2001In Breeze v. Breeze, 421 N.E.2d 647, 650 (Ind.1981), our Supreme Court held that a praecipe which is filed prior to a ruling on a second motion to correct error "will count as if filed from the date of the ruling on the second motion to correct error." Thus, had the trial court held a hearing and issued a ruling (or the motion was deemed denied) after the filing of Linda's praecipe, Linda's praecipe would count as if it were filed from that date. 2001All time periods for the purpose of the appellate rules will then start from the time of the trial court's ruling on the second motion to correct error." 6 Id. | 1 | 5 |
Calloway v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Id.; see also, Ind. Trial Rule 59(F) (“Any modification or setting aside of a final judgment or an appealable final order following the filing of a Motion to Correct Error shall be an appealable final judgment or order.”); Calloway v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1196, 1198 (Ind. 1986) (holding “under the circumstances of this case the [trial] court [judge] did not commit reversible error in correcting 3 his ruling on the first motion [to correct error]”). 3 In Calloway v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 1986), due to a recent decision clarifying the law at issue, a second motion to correct error was filed 2016Id.; see also, Ind. Trial Rule 59(F) (“Any modification or setting aside of a final judgment or an appealable final order following the filing of a Motion to Correct Error shall be an appealable final judgment or order.”); Calloway v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1196, 1198 (Ind. 1986) (holding “under the circumstances of this case the [trial] court [judge] did not commit reversible error in correcting 3 his ruling on the first motion [to correct error]”). 3 In Calloway v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 1986), due to a recent decision clarifying the law at issue, a second motion to correct error was filed | 1 | 1 |
Peters v. Perrygreen1 sentence2013See Ind. Trial Rule 53.4 (repetitive motions and motions to reconsider “shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.”); Peters v. Perry, 873 N.E.2d 676, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Trial Rule 53.4 and holding that the filing of a second motion to correct error would not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal; notice of appeal was due within thirty days from the date first motion to correct error was ruled on), modified on other grounds on reh’g, 877 N.E.2d 498 (In | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PM Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith
green
2 sentences1981Tr.P. 59 and our case of P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, (1978) 268 Ind. 297 , 375 N.E.2d 592 , do not preclude the filing of a second motion to correct error addressed to a change in the trial court’s finding or judgment. 1981Tr.P. 59 and our case of P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, (1978) 268 Ind. 297 , 375 N.E.2d 592 , do not preclude the filing of a second motion to correct error addressed to a change in the trial court’s finding or judgment. | 3 | 1980–1981 |
Peters v. Perry
green
1 sentence2013See Ind. Trial Rule 53.4 (repetitive motions and motions to reconsider “shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.”); Peters v. Perry, 873 N.E.2d 676, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Trial Rule 53.4 and holding that the filing of a second motion to correct error would not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal; notice of appeal was due within thirty days from the date first motion to correct error was ruled on), modified on other grounds on reh’g, 877 N.E.2d 498 (In | 1 | 2013–2013 |
WW Extended Care, Inc. v. Swinkunas
green
2 sentences2007The appellant did not file a notice of appeal after the denial of the first motion to correct error, instead waiting until after the denial of the second motion to correct error to raise the jurisdictional issue on appeal. 764 N.E.2d at 790 . 2007The appellant did not file a notice of appeal after the denial of the first motion to correct error, instead waiting until after the denial of the second motion to correct error to raise the jurisdictional issue on appeal. 764 N.E.2d at 790 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Staples v. State
green
2 sentences1986Staples, supra; Fancher, supra. Given our disposition of this issue, it follows that Ind.R.Tr.P. 58.4(B), which provides that a repetitive motion shall be denied unless ruled upon within five days, is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. 1986Staples v. State (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 985 ; Fancher v. State (1982), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 311 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Durham v. State
green
1 sentence1986Durham v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 321 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences1986Appellant further contends that the court erred in granting the second motion to correct error because the court was unjustified in relying on Kelly, supra, Ind., 452 N.E.2d 907 , "for the proposition that consecutive habitual offender sentences are legal." Initially, we would point out that appellant would not, as he alleges, have been subject to consecutive habitual offender "sentences." An habitual offender finding does not result in a separate sentence, but rather results in a sentence enhancement for the latest felony conviction. 1986Appellant further contends that the court erred in granting the second motion to correct error because the court was unjustified in relying on Kelly, supra, Ind., 452 N.E.2d 907 , "for the proposition that consecutive habitual offender sentences are legal." Initially, we would point out that appellant would not, as he alleges, have been subject to consecutive habitual offender "sentences." An habitual offender finding does not result in a separate sentence, but rather results in a sentence enhancement for the latest felony conviction. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. Novy
green
1 sentence1981As he stated in Continental Casualty Co. v. Novy, supra: “First we observe that the language of TR 59 does not appear to preclude a party’s opportunity to move for correction of error which it perceives as occurring in the court’s actions amending, etc. its findings and judgment. | 1 | 1981–1981 |