12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mariga v. Flintgreen2 sentences2011We cannot say that any error in the verification process affected Benson's substantial rights. [1] See Mariga v. Flint, 822 N.E.2d 620, 632-33 (Ind.Ct. 2011We cannot say that any error in the verification process affected Benson’s substantial rights. 1 See Mariga v. Flint, 822 N.E.2d 620, 632-33 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties), trans. denied; Wabash Valley Hosp., 827 N.E.2d at 63 n. 14 (holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause). | 2 | 2 |
Adamovich v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See I.C. § 35-33-5-2(c) (requiring that the oath supporting a probable cause affidavit be "substantially in the following form"); see also Adamovich v. State , 529 N.E.2d 346 , 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (finding that the verification requirement was fulfilled where the probable cause affiant's signature did not directly follow his verification but where he signed each page of the probable cause affidavit). | 1 | 1 |
Hoosier Environmental Council v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2010For example, in Hoosier Environmental Council v. Department of Natural Resowrces, 673 N.E.2d 811, 815 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied, we held that although an unverified petition was timely filed, the motion to amend the petition was filed after the thirty-day period expired and "the trial court never obtained jurisdiction over the case." Although Hoosier clearly required timely compliance with the verification requirement, our supreme court has since discarded the concept of jurisdiction over the case. *906 In K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind.2006), our supreme court clarified: Like | 1 | 1 |
KS v. Stategreen1 sentence2010For example, in Hoosier Environmental Council v. Department of Natural Resowrces, 673 N.E.2d 811, 815 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied, we held that although an unverified petition was timely filed, the motion to amend the petition was filed after the thirty-day period expired and "the trial court never obtained jurisdiction over the case." Although Hoosier clearly required timely compliance with the verification requirement, our supreme court has since discarded the concept of jurisdiction over the case. *906 In K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind.2006), our supreme court clarified: Like | 1 | 1 |
Prebster v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2006Discussing the verification requirement for wills, which we regard as analogous to the verification requirement for petitions, our Supreme Court remarked in Prebster v. Henderson, 186 Ind. 21 , 113 N.E. 241, 241-43 (1916), petition for reh'g overruled, as to the timeliness of an opponent's objection to a lack of verification that: It has been held by this court that the verification of the objections to the probate of a will is not jurisdictional. * * * the failure to verify was first raised by a motion in arrest of judgment and it was held that the objection came too late. 2006Discussing the verification requirement for wills, which we regard as analogous to the verification requirement for petitions, our Supreme Court remarked in Prebster v. Henderson, 186 Ind. 21 , 113 N.E. 241, 241-43 (1916), petition for reh'g overruled, as to the timeliness of an opponent's objection to a lack of verification that: It has been held by this court that the verification of the objections to the probate of a will is not jurisdictional. * * * the failure to verify was first raised by a motion in arrest of judgment and it was held that the objection came too late. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Thompson, 389 N.E.2d at 276 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2009 |
St. Joseph Hospital v. Cain
green
2 sentences2014We believe that, by the verification requirement, the General Assembly did not intend to preclude a court promulgated rule from allowing a petition to be amended and to relate back to the date of the filing of' the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15. 937 N.E.2d at 909 . 2014We believe that, by the verification requirement, the General Assembly did not intend to preclude a court promulgated rule from allowing a petition to be amended and to relate back to the date of the filing of' the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15. 937 N.E.2d at 909 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Starzenski v. City of Elkhart
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011We cannot say that any error in the verification process affected Benson’s substantial rights. 1 See Mariga v. Flint, 822 N.E.2d 620, 632-33 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties), trans. denied; Wabash Valley Hosp., 827 N.E.2d at 63 n. 14 (holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Owen v. State
green
2 sentences1979We agree that the verification requirement with the post-conviction rule is not a mere technicality, but rather serves the substantial purpose of “finally closing the door to post-conviction remedies.” See Owen v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 715, 718 . 1979We agree that the verification requirement with the post-conviction rule is not a mere technicality, but rather serves the substantial purpose of "finally closing the door to post-conviction remedies." See Owen v. State, (1975) Ind. App., 338 N.E.2d 715, 718 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.