procedural posture hearing in Indiana

10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2019 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
McCorker v. Stategreen ind · 2003 · cited in 6 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2017 2 sentences 2014“While we frame the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error in somewhat different terms[,] ... they will invariably operate to produce the same result where the procedural posture of the claim is caused by counsel’s failure to object at trial.” McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257, 262-63 (Ind.2003) (footnote omitted). 2012But as we acknowledged in Benefield, our supreme court has explained: While we frame the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error in somewhat different terms—appropriately so, since the first is a standard of Federal Constitutional law and the second of state criminal procedure—they will invariably operate to produce the same result where the procedural posture of the claim is caused by counsel’s failure to object at trial. 19 McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257, 262-63 (Ind. 2003); accord Benefield, 945 N.E.2d at 803 .	6	6
United States v. Hamiltongreen ca7 · 2007 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Brewington , 7 N.E.3d at 974 (because "fundamental error requires a showing of at least as much prejudice to the defendant as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel," a finding against the former claim establishes a finding against the latter claim) (citing Culver v. State , 727 N.E.2d 1062 , 1070 & n. 7 (Ind. 2000) ); see also United States v. Hamilton , 499 F.3d 734 , 736 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying similar reasoning).	1	1
Daniel Brewington v. State of Indianagreen ind · 2014 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Brewington , 7 N.E.3d at 974 (because "fundamental error requires a showing of at least as much prejudice to the defendant as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel," a finding against the former claim establishes a finding against the latter claim) (citing Culver v. State , 727 N.E.2d 1062 , 1070 & n. 7 (Ind. 2000) ); see also United States v. Hamilton , 499 F.3d 734 , 736 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying similar reasoning).	1	1
Whiting v. Stategreen ind · 2012 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014"Although fundamental-error and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are different, they often yield the same result.” Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind.2012) (citing McCorker v. State 797 N.E.2d 257, 262-63 (Ind.2003)). 5 .	1	1
Benefield v. Stategreen indctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012But as we acknowledged in Benefield, our supreme court has explained: While we frame the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error in somewhat different terms—appropriately so, since the first is a standard of Federal Constitutional law and the second of state criminal procedure—they will invariably operate to produce the same result where the procedural posture of the claim is caused by counsel’s failure to object at trial. 19 McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257, 262-63 (Ind. 2003); accord Benefield, 945 N.E.2d at 803 . 2012Thus, while these two standards are different, they “may frequently lead to the same result.” Benefield, 945 N.E.2d at 803 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Culver v. State green ind · 2000 2 sentences 2019Brewington , 7 N.E.3d at 974 (because "fundamental error requires a showing of at least as much prejudice to the defendant as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel," a finding against the former claim establishes a finding against the latter claim) (citing Culver v. State , 727 N.E.2d 1062 , 1070 & n. 7 (Ind. 2000) ); see also United States v. Hamilton , 499 F.3d 734 , 736 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying similar reasoning). 2014As we have previously recognized, “fundamental error requires a showing of at least as much prejudice to the defendant as a claim of ineffective assistance of. counsel,” and so “finding that [a defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel also establishes that the alleged error was not so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error.” Culver v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1062 , 1070 & n. 7 (Ind.2000) (citing Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 , 1008 n. 8 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied).	2	2014–2019
Rouster v. State green ind · 1999 1 sentence 2014As we have previously recognized, “fundamental error requires a showing of at least as much prejudice to the defendant as a claim of ineffective assistance of. counsel,” and so “finding that [a defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel also establishes that the alleged error was not so prejudicial as to constitute fundamental error.” Culver v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1062 , 1070 & n. 7 (Ind.2000) (citing Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 , 1008 n. 8 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied).	1	2014–2014
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana green ind · 2014 1 sentence 2014Our Supreme Court has 24 noted that “[w]here the procedural posture of a claim is affected by counsel’s failure to object at trial, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be more on point than a claim of fundamental error.” Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 , 668 n.4 (Ind. 2014).	1	2014–2014
Dooley v. State green ind · 1979 2 sentences 1985Dooley v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 404 , 393 N.E.2d 154 . 1985Dooley v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 404 , 393 N.E.2d 154 .	1	1985–1985
WOERNER, ETC. v. City of Indianapolis green ind · 1961 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976
Abeele v. Ruse neutral indctapp · 1942 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976
Gerdenich, Admx. v. Goss neutral indctapp · 1945 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976
In re Estate of Overmyer green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. [11] In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976
Woerner v. City of Indianapolis green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. [11] In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976
Kelly v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. [11] In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 . 1976The general rule applicable here in the absence of a Commission rule is that an intervenor must accept the procedural posture of the hearing at the time of intervention. 11 In re Woerner v. City of Indianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. 253 , 177 N.E.2d 34 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); Gerdenich v. Goss (1945), 115 Ind. App. 538 , 60 N.E.2d 603 ; Abeele v. Ruse (1942), 112 Ind. App. 596 , 44 N.E.2d 235 .	1	1976–1976

Where else courts name it

IN 10 (1976–2019) OH 2 (2000–2015) GA 2 (2018–2024) IL 2 (2015–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check