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.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tapia v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Following the denial of Tucker's motion to withdraw, and while his appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, we decided Tapia v. State, 753 N.E.2d 581 (Ind.2001), holding that a post-conviction court's denial of a motion to withdraw is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. 2003We emphasized that a trial court's exercise of discretion "should be upset only when the court reached an erroneous conclusion and judgment, one clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Id. at 585 (omitting emphasis and internal quotation marks). | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence1995See James v. State (1993), Ind., 613 N.E.2d 15, 22 (evidence of defendant's prior criminal history is highly prejudicial and should not be admitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ronie Tucker v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 711 . 2004The Court also rejected the State's claims of prejudice. 5 The Court therefore held: "Finding no indication of improper purpose for Tucker's motion to withdraw without prejudice, and finding no showing of substantial prejudice to the State, we conclude that the post-conviction court's refusal to permit Tucker to withdraw his petition for post-conviction relief without prejudice was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court." Tucker, 786 N.E.2d at 713 . | 3 | 2004–2012 |
Tucker v. Duke
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 668 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Life v. FC Tucker Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2019In Life v. Tucker Co., Inc. , 948 N.E.2d 346 , 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Life filed a belated response to Tucker's motion for summary judgment, as well as a motion for partial summary judgment against Tucker which included the same arguments and designated evidence as in the belated response. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Lane
green
2 sentences1999In determining whether a Tucker violation occurred, the Seventh Circuit noted, “The difference between robbery and armed robbery is substantial under current Illinois law.... [T]he sentencing court generally has less discretion to be lenient when sentencing for [armed robbery type felonies].” Id. at 865 n. 2. 1999In determining whether a Tucker violation occurred, the Seventh Circuit noted, “The difference between robbery and armed robbery is substantial under current Illinois law.... [T]he sentencing court generally has less discretion to be lenient when sentencing for [armed robbery type felonies].” Id. at 865 n. 2. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Plough v. Farmers State Bank of Henry County
green
1 sentence1982Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Plough v. Farmers State Bank of Henry County, (filed June 22, 1982) Ind.Ápp., 437 N.E.2d 471 , No. 1-181 A 21; Hockelberg v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company, (1980) Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 1160 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hockelberg v. Farm Bureau Insurance
green
1 sentence1982Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Plough v. Farmers State Bank of Henry County, (filed June 22, 1982) Ind.Ápp., 437 N.E.2d 471 , No. 1-181 A 21; Hockelberg v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company, (1980) Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 1160 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.