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.
10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1876–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barrett v. Stategreen1 sentence2018We will not become an “a party’s advocate, nor will we address arguments that are Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1711-PC-2748 | July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 7 inappropriate, improperly expressed, or too poorly developed to be understood.” Barrett v. State, 837 N.E.2d 1022, 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. [13] Moreover, Knight does not suggest that the supposed error prejudiced him or argue that the sentence he received was excessive. | 1 | 1 |
Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scottgreen1 sentence1976We have discovered no case in which this court or our Supreme Court followed the “thirteenth juror” rule, thus according to the trial court’s action “a strong presumption of correctness”, Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott, supra, 300 N.E.2d at 53 (original emphasis), when the relief given by the trial court contrary to the verdict, consisted of correcting the supposed error without permitting a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Risher v. Gilpin
neutral
2 sentences1881If the supposed error of law, of which the appellant and his couusel complain, had been properly saved in the record, so that it could be correctly said to be an “error of law appearing in the proceedings and judgment,” then, it would seem to us, that the case cited of Risher v. Gilpin, supra, was directly in point, and, if approved, it would fully sustain the position and argument of the appellant’s counsel. 1880If the supposed error of law, of which the appellant and his counsel complain, had been properly saved in the record, so that it could be correctly said to be an “error of law appearing in the proceedings and judgment,” then it would seem to us that the case cited of Risher v. Gilpin, supra, was directly in point, and, if approved, it would fully sustain the position and argument of the appellant’s counsel. | 2 | 1880–1881 |
Richardson v. Howk
green
2 sentences1881In Richardson v. Howk, 45 Ind. 451 , Osborn J., speaking for the court, said : “A bill of review cannot be used as a means of creating an exception, in the first instance. 1880In Richardson v. Howk, 45 Ind. 451 , Osborn, J., speaking for the court,, said : “A bill of review can not be used as a means of creating an exception in the first instance. | 2 | 1880–1881 |
Fugate v. State
green
1 sentence1935Fugate v. State (1904), 85 Miss. 94 , 37 So. 554 , 3 Ann. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Hansher v. Hanshew
neutral
1 sentence1885Hansher v. Hanshew, 94 Ind. 208 . | 1 | 1885–1885 |
Mitchell v. Chambers
neutral
1 sentence1882This much is due as well to the trial court as to this court, and, unless the record shows that such a statement of the offered evidence was made at the time, the supposed error of law, if it exist, can not be made available in this court; Mitahell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 ; Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 . | 1 | 1882–1882 |
Graeter v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1882This much is due as well to the trial court as to this court, and, unless the record shows that such a statement of the offered evidence was made at the time, the supposed error of law, if it exist, can not be made available in this court; Mitahell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 ; Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 . | 1 | 1882–1882 |
Bake v. Smiley
neutral
1 sentence1882This much is due as well to the trial court as to this court, and, unless the record shows that such a statement of the offered evidence was made at the time, the supposed error of law, if it exist, can not be made available in this court; Mitahell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 ; Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 . | 1 | 1882–1882 |
Leary v. Ebert
neutral
1 sentence1881Leary v. Ebert, 72 Ind. 418 . | 1 | 1881–1881 |
Hay v. State ex rel. McClanrahan
neutral
1 sentence1879Hay v. The State, ex rel., 58 Ind. 337 ; Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282 . | 1 | 1879–1879 |
Myers v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1879Hay v. The State, ex rel., 58 Ind. 337 ; Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282 . | 1 | 1879–1879 |
Yancy v. Smith
green
1 sentence1876Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Met. 460 ; Wilde v. Commonwealth, 2 Met. 408 . | 1 | 1876–1876 |
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.