11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wardship of Nahrwold v. Department of Public Welfaregreen2 sentences1992See Wardship of Nahrwold v. Dept. of Public Welfare (1981), Ind. App., 427 N.E.2d 474, 480 (due process requirements were met in a detention hearing when mother was given the opportunity to be present with counsel and state her version of the events in question). 1992See Wardship of Nahrwold v. Dept. of Public Welfare (1981), Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 474, 480 (due process requirements were met in a detention hearing when mother was given the opportunity to be present with counsel and state her version of the events in question). | 2 | 3 |
Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hospitalgreen2 sentences2016Section 2 – Appellants have waived any claim of error regarding P.G.’s detention. [9] Next, Appellants contend that the trial court inappropriately detained P.G. after the detention hearing, for which they did not receive notice until days afterward. 8 DCS observes that Appellants never raised this issue before the trial court. “[A]n argument or issue not presented to the trial court is generally waived for appellate review.” Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hosp., 959 N.E.2d 855, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (2012). 2016“The rule of waiver in part protects the integrity of the trial court in that the trial court cannot be found to have erred as to an issue or argument that it never had an opportunity to consider.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Lawrancegreen1 sentence1993See Lawrance, supra. IC 81-6-4-6(e) provides in relevant part that: "If the child is not released, a detention hearing must be held within seventy-two (72) hours (exeluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after he is taken into custody; otherwise he shall be released. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Tacy
neutral
2 sentences1983In In the Matter of Tacy, supra, the Court of Appeals stated the failure to release the juvenile when no hearing on detention was held within forty-eight hours as required under 1.0. § 31-6-4-5(f) "does not mean the court loses jurisdiction ...." 427 N.E.2d at 921 . 1983In the Matter of Tacy, supra. The Court also held the failure to hold a detention hearing within forty-eight hours after appellant was taken into custody, as required by LC. § 81-6-4-5(f) [Burns 1980 Repl.], was error but did not cause the juvenile court to lose jurisdiction over him. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
green
1 sentence2018In re G.P. , 4 N.E.3d at 1164 . [32] Here, in the CHINS proceeding, the order on the initial detention hearing, dated July 22, 2016, shows that Father denied the allegations in the CHINS petition. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
WRS v. State
green
1 sentence2010W.R.S., 759 N.E.2d at 1123 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
green
1 sentence1993The taking of a child into custody for the child's protection is not tantmount [sic] to criminal detention requiring a hearing within forty-eight (48) hours as determined in County Of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) [___] U.S. [___], 111 Sct. [sic] 1661 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 49 ] and that this proceeding is not a criminal action. 5. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1981As is well recognized: “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 901 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 . 1981As is well recognized: “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 901 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.