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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matzat v. Matzatgreen2 sentences2020Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Matzat v. Matzat, 854 N.E.2d 918, 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). [12] According to Husband, after the dissolution decree was entered, Husband discovered that Wife removed $16,379.00 from the Lake City Joint Account in violation of the trial court’s provisional order. 2012In order to prevail on a motion to correct error based on newly discovered evidence, a party must do as follows: demonstrate that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at trial with reasonable diligence; that the evidence is material, relevant, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; that the evidence is not incompetent; that he exercised due diligence to discover the evidence in time for the final hearing; that the evidence is worthy of credit; and, that the evidence raises the strong presumption that a different result would have been reached upon retrial. 3 Matzat v. Mat | 5 | 5 |
Scales v. Scalesgreen2 sentences2020Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Matzat v. Matzat, 854 N.E.2d 918, 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). [12] According to Husband, after the dissolution decree was entered, Husband discovered that Wife removed $16,379.00 from the Lake City Joint Account in violation of the trial court’s provisional order. 2019Scales, 891 N.E.2d at 1120 (citing Matzat v. Matzat, 854 N.E.2d 918, 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). | 1 | 2 |
Laudig v. MARION CTY. BD. OF VOTERS REG.green2 sentences2006See Laudig v. Marion County Bd. of Voters Registration, 585 N.E.2d 700, 712 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). *920 To prevail on a motion to correct error based on newly discovered evidence, John needed to demonstrate that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at trial with reasonable diligence; that the evidence is material, relevant, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; that the evidence is not incompetent; that he exercised due diligence to discover the evidence in time for the final hearing; that the evidence is worthy of credit; and, that the evidence raises the strong presumption 2006Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wiles v. State
green
2 sentences1992Wiles v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 35 ; Bubb v. State (1982), Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 120 . 1992Wiles v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 35 ; Bubb v. State (1982), Ind. App., 434 N.E.2d 120 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Bubb v. State
green
2 sentences1992Wiles v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 35 ; Bubb v. State (1982), Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 120 . 1992Wiles v. State (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 35 ; Bubb v. State (1982), Ind. App., 434 N.E.2d 120 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |