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 1990–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
A.Y. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2019However, in A.Y. v. Review Board of Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 948 N.E.2d 373, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-2638 | July 11, 2019 Page 10 of 12 trans. denied, we reversed and remanded for a determination of whether a claimant, who alleged that she provided her correct telephone number yet did not receive a call from the ALJ and thereafter called within the time allotted for her hearing, had shown good cause for reinstatement of her appeal. 2013However, in A.Y. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, 948 N.E.2d 373, 379 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), tram, denied, we reversed and remanded for a determination of whether a claimant, who alleged that she provided her correct telephone number yet did not receive a call from the ALJ and thereafter called within the time allotted for her hearing, had shown good cause for reinstatement of her appeal. | 3 | 3 |
Morrison v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Morrison v. State, 555 N.E.2d 458, 463 (Ind.1990) ("A defendant has no duty to object to the setting of a belated trial date when the act of setting such date occurs after the time expires such that the court cannot reset the trial date within the time allotted by the rule.”). 1992"A defendant has no duty to object to the setting of a belated trial date when the act of setting such date occurs after the time expires such that the court cannot reset the trial date within the time allotted by the rule." Morrison, supra, at 468 . | 1 | 5 |
Murphy v. Curtisgreen1 sentence2014See Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1233-34 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Young v. State, 765 N.E.2d 673, 679 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). 2008Young v. State, 765 N.E.2d 673, 679 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saunders v. State
green
1 sentence1996Saunders, 562 N.E.2d at 735 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Tomes
green
1 sentence1990Tomes, 466 N.E.2d at 70 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.