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 1972–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keeney v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Keeney v. State, 873 N.E.2d 187, 190 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (noting that it “is within our authority to strike the brief entirely” when proper citation is omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stevensongreen1 sentence2011Initially, we acknowledge the well-known legal premise that "[a]fter entering an agreed judgment, the trial court has no authority to modify or change the judgment in any essential or material manner." Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551, 565 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Breeze v. Breezegreen2 sentences2001In Breeze v. Breeze, 421 N.E.2d 647, 650 (Ind.1981), our Supreme Court held that a praecipe which is filed prior to a ruling on a second motion to correct error "will count as if filed from the date of the ruling on the second motion to correct error." Thus, had the trial court held a hearing and issued a ruling (or the motion was deemed denied) after the filing of Linda's praecipe, Linda's praecipe would count as if it were filed from that date. 2001In Breeze v. Breeze, 421 N.E.2d 647, 650 (Ind.1981), our Supreme Court held that a praecipe which is filed prior to a ruling on a second motion to correct error "will count as if filed from the date of the ruling on the second motion to correct error." Thus, had the trial court held a hearing and issued a ruling (or the motion was deemed denied) after the filing of Linda's praecipe, Linda's praecipe would count as if it were filed from that date. | 1 | 1 |
Cavinder Elevators, Inc. v. Hallgreen2 sentences2001She made no mention of a hearing on Michael's motion to correct error. [3] Rules cited herein refer to the former versions that were effective until January 1, 2001. [4] However, pursuant to the decision of our Supreme Court in Cavinder Elevators, Inc. v. Hall, 726 N.E.2d 285, 289 (Ind.2000), the belated grant of a motion to correct error is not necessarily a nullity but rather is voidable subject to a timely appeal under Ind.Trial Rule 59(F) and former Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A). [5] Were I writing upon a clean slate, I might agree with the majority and set a definite time limit upon when a mot 2001However, pursuant to the decision of our Supreme Court in Cavinder Elevators, Inc. v. Hall, 726 N.E.2d 285, 289 (Ind.2000), the belated grant of a motion to correct error is not necessarily a nullity but rather is voidable subject to a timely appeal under Ind.Trial Rule 59(F) and former Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Michael v. GLACIER GEN. ASSUR.
green
2 sentences2010The Montana Supreme Court held that Montana Code Section 33-2-1365(4) precluded merger of the claim on the bond into the final judgment entered by the Kentucky court because under that statute, the Kentucky judgment had "no binding effect on either liability or damages." Id. at 276 . 2010The Montana Supreme Court held that Montana Code Section 33-2-18365(4) precluded merger of the claim on the bond into the final judgment entered by the Kentucky court because under that statute, the Kentucky judgment had "no binding effect on either liability or damages." Id. at 276 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Parham v. Parham
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Strutz v. McNagny
green
2 sentences1995Strutz v. McNagny (1990), Ind.App., 558 N.E.2d 1103, 1109 , trans. denied. 1995Strutz v. McNagny (1990), Ind. App., 558 N.E.2d 1103, 1109 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Fagan v. ROYER
green
2 sentences1972Fagan v. Royer (1963), 244 Ind. 377 , 193 N.E.2d 64 ; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146 , 73 N.E.2d 343 . 1972Fagan v. Royer (1963), 244 Ind. 377 , 193 N.E.2d 64 ; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146 , 73 N.E.2d 343 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Meadows v. Hickman
green
2 sentences1972Fagan v. Royer (1963), 244 Ind. 377 , 193 N.E.2d 64 ; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146 , 73 N.E.2d 343 . 1972Fagan v. Royer (1963), 244 Ind. 377 , 193 N.E.2d 64 ; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146 , 73 N.E.2d 343 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.