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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Servicesgreen2 sentences2016Due process protections are vital during all stages of CHINS proceedings “because every CHINS proceeding has potential to interfere with the rights of parents in the upbringing of their children.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016Combined Hearing [10] Mother first argues that she was deprived of her due process rights when the trial court combined the permanency and custody hearings and that the combined hearing created a high risk of error because it allowed DCS, rather than Father, to prove Father’s custody case. [11] Due process protections bar “state action that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without a fair proceeding.” In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158, 1165 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Fajardo v. Statered1 sentence2012This evidence was sufficient. 4 Dokes also asserts the testimony that he possessed the weapon is incredibly dubious under the rule re-announced in Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind.2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holloway v. State
green
1 sentence2020Holloway did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal his sentence . . . .” Id. [24] Here, we find that the trial court’s statements during the guilty plea portion of the combined hearing were sufficiently ambiguous and confusing such that Harper’s waiver of her right to appeal her sentence was not knowing and voluntary. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Azhar v. Town of Fishers
green
1 sentence2016The content of ISDH’s attachments and documents were discussed by counsel for both parties at the hearing, as well as Doe’s cited Texas district court case. - ■ [27] Applying the three Azhar considerations to the present case, we conclude that ISDH’s reliance on the outside materials was “readily apparent.” 744 N.E.2d at 950 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
1 sentence2012In finding the statute overbroad and an unconstitutional infringement of the right of parents to rear their children, the Supreme Court held that “so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.” Id. at 68-69 . 6 We note at the outset that during the combined hearing Mother testified that she did not have any objection to Grandfather, his wife, | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City of Fort Wayne v. State Ex Rel. Hoagland
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1976School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co. (1971), 149 Ind. App. 416 , 273 N.E.2d 293 . 1976School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co. (1971), 149 Ind. App. 416 , 273 N.E.2d 293 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.