8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sneed v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“The amount of bail is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255, 1257 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Perry v. State, 541 N.E.2d 913, 919 (Ind.1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Lea v. Leagreen1 sentence2013“We place a ‘strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations’ and regularly acknowledge ‘the principle that child support modifications will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.’” Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125, 128 (Ind. 4 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Stultz v. Stultzgreen1 sentence2013“We place a ‘strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations’ and regularly acknowledge ‘the principle that child support modifications will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.’” Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. 1998) (quoting Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125, 128 (Ind. 4 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“The amount of bail is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255, 1257 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Perry v. State, 541 N.E.2d 913, 919 (Ind.1989)). | 1 | 1 |
GKN Co. v. Magnessgreen1 sentence2002GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Precision Screen MacHines, Inc. v. Hixsongreen1 sentence1999On appeal, Deree argues the trial court erred, as the grant of a new trial is appropriate and the sanctioning of All American is warranted. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review with respect to the grant of a new trial was recently set forth in Precision Screen Machines, Inc. v. Hixson, 711 N.E.2d 68, 70 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Euler v. Eulergreen1 sentence1998Euler v. Euler, 537 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
N. Ind. Pub. Serv. v. E. CHICAGO SAN. D.green1 sentence1994See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. East Chicago Sanitary District (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Downham v. Wagner
green
1 sentence1995Downham v. Wagner (1980), Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 606, 610 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.