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 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Metcalf v. Estate of Hastingsgreen2 sentences2018That was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. [16] Kelley cites this court’s holding in Metcalf that “when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of T.R. 41(E) is satisfied, regardless of whether the plaintiff or his counsel attends the hearing.” 726 N.E.2d at 374 . 2016Corp., 12 N.E.3d 955, 961-63 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (holding that Trial Rule 41(E) hearing requirement was not satisfied where parties appeared by counsel for hearing but trial court did not hear their arguments and that trial court was required to hold hearing prior to dismissing case), trans. denied, and cases cited therein. 4 [15] However, in Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied, the majority stated that “when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of T.R. 41(E) is satisfied, regardles | 3 | 5 |
Lake County Trust No. 3190 v. Highland Plan Commissiongreen2 sentences2016Lake County Trust v. Highland, Plan Com’n, 674 N.E.2d 626, 629 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied [(1997)]. 2006Lake County Trust v. Highland Plan Com'n, 674 N.E.2d 626, 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. * * * Metcalf argues that the trial court erred by ruling on the Estate's motion without holding a hearing. | 3 | 3 |
Rumfelt v. Himesgreen1 sentence2016See Rumfelt [, 438 N.E.2d at 983 ], However, when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of T.R. 41(E) is satisfied, regardless of whether the plaintiff or his counsel attends the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Somerville Auto Transport Service, Inc. and Robert Souza v. Automotive Finance Corporationgreen1 sentence2016Corp., 12 N.E.3d 955, 961-63 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (holding that Trial Rule 41(E) hearing requirement was not satisfied where parties appeared by counsel for hearing but trial court did not hear their arguments and that trial court was required to hold hearing prior to dismissing case), trans. denied, and cases cited therein. 4 [15] However, in Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied, the majority stated that “when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of T.R. 41(E) is satisfied, regardles | 1 | 1 |
Lasater v. Lasatergreen1 sentence2010Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 387-88 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Ritz
green
2 sentences2014See Appellants’ Brief at 16; Appellants’ Reply Brief at 5 (citing Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372, 374 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (stating that, when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of Rule 41(E) is satisfied), trans. denied, and Ind. Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Ritz, 945 N.E.2d 209, 212 , 213 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (noting the statement in Metcalf above in a footnote but also observing in reciting the facts that, with respect to the cause subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Trial Rule 41(E), the 2014See Appellants’ Brief at 16; Appellants’ Reply Brief at 5 (citing Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372, 374 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (stating that, when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of Rule 41(E) is satisfied), trans. denied, and Ind. Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Ritz, 945 N.E.2d 209, 212 , 213 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (noting the statement in Metcalf above in a footnote but also observing in reciting the facts that, with respect to the cause subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Trial Rule 41(E), the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.