9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Willoughby v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Segura, 749 N.E.2d at 504 ; see also Willoughby, 792 N.E.2d at 563 (stating “it is immaterial whether [a defendant’s] claim is of an involuntary plea or ineffective assistance of counsel”). [21] As evidence that his plea was induced by an improper threat, Gibson points us to testimony of his defense attorneys. | 1 | 1 |
Pittman v. Stategreen1 sentence2018The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Gibson’s motion under Trial Rule 72(E). [13] We further note that, to the extent Gibson challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences and his crimes related to two victims, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[c]onsecutive sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims.” Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008) (citing McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
McCann v. Stategreen1 sentence2018The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Gibson’s motion under Trial Rule 72(E). [13] We further note that, to the extent Gibson challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences and his crimes related to two victims, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[c]onsecutive sentences reflect the significance of multiple victims.” Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1259 (Ind. 2008) (citing McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Segura v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Segura, 749 N.E.2d at 504 ; see also Willoughby, 792 N.E.2d at 563 (stating “it is immaterial whether [a defendant’s] claim is of an involuntary plea or ineffective assistance of counsel”). [21] As evidence that his plea was induced by an improper threat, Gibson points us to testimony of his defense attorneys. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of Three Oaks v. Lakefront Propertiesgreen2 sentences2012In Michigan’s seminal case on the full credit bid rule, Bank of Three Oaks v. Lakefront Properties, 178 Mich.App. 551 , 444 N.W.2d 217, 218 (1989), the lender obtained a judgment on a promissory note. 2012In Michigan’s seminal case on the full credit bid rule, Bank of Three Oaks v. Lakefront Properties, 178 Mich.App. 551 , 444 N.W.2d 217, 218 (1989), the lender obtained a judgment on a promissory note. | 1 | 1 |
Dempsey v. Cartergreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Dempsey, 797 N.E.2d at 274 (holding that the vendor was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence demonstrating default on the land contract by the purchaser was uncontroverted). | 1 | 1 |
Smylie v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 690 (Ind.2005) (finding failure to raise Sixth Amendment objection to trial court does not constitute forfeiture of a Blakely issue for purposes of appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gibson v. Neu
green
1 sentence2010Gibson v. Neu, 867 N.E.2d 188 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pelley v. State
green
1 sentence2009The trial court also found that the period from May 5, 2008, to the ultimate trial date on October 10, 2008, was attributable to Gibson because on May 5, 2008, Gibson asked for a contested bench trial and "the court did as the defendant asked" and set a contested bench trial for July 25, 2008, appellant's app. at 22, and Gibson then requested a continuance of the July 25, 2008, contested bench trial setting, id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence1988In a case concerning change of venue from a judge-which is also governed by the provisions of C.R. 12-this court held that the requirement of a hearing is mandatory, and that failure to grant a hearing was reversible error, Wilson v. State (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 932 (citing Otte v. Tessman (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 660 , in which the supreme court held that, under T.R. 56(c), the requirement of a hearing not less than ten days after service of a summary judgment motion was mandatory.) Thus, when the trial court summarily denied Gibson's motion, it committed a manifest abuse of discretion | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Otte v. Tessman
green
1 sentence1988In a case concerning change of venue from a judge-which is also governed by the provisions of C.R. 12-this court held that the requirement of a hearing is mandatory, and that failure to grant a hearing was reversible error, Wilson v. State (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 932 (citing Otte v. Tessman (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 660 , in which the supreme court held that, under T.R. 56(c), the requirement of a hearing not less than ten days after service of a summary judgment motion was mandatory.) Thus, when the trial court summarily denied Gibson's motion, it committed a manifest abuse of discretion | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Brady v. Acs
green
2 sentences1978Holderbaum was guilty of willful or wanton misconduct. . .’ “5) That on February 23, 1976 the court ordered that said T.R. 50(A) motion should be sustained and the prior ruling denying the same be withdrawn, set aside and vacated and judgment for defendants was entered. “6) That by the entry of a new judgment for defendants on February 23,1976 the court found the plaintiff had failed to prove willful and wanton misconduct when that issue had by the court been expressly excluded as an issue in the trial of said cause. “7) As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sidle v. Majors this court 1978Holderbaum was guilty of willful or wanton misconduct. . .’ “5) That on February 23, 1976 the court ordered that said T.R. 50(A) motion should be sustained and the prior ruling denying the same be withdrawn, set aside and vacated and judgment for defendants was entered. “6) That by the entry of a new judgment for defendants on February 23,1976 the court found the plaintiff had failed to prove willful and wanton misconduct when that issue had by the court been expressly excluded as an issue in the trial of said cause. “7) As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sidle v. Majors this court | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.