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 2 courts 2006–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Packard v. Shoopmangreen2 sentences2018And "[b]ecause the timeliness of filing does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tax Court, any objection to the timeliness of filing is a procedural rather than jurisdictional error that can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time." Id. at 931-32 . [11] Here, the filing of a petition to revoke a person's placement in a community corrections program by the appropriate person is similarly "jurisdictional" only in the sense that it is a statutory prerequisite to the filing of the petition. 2016Cf. In re Adaption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind.2014) (“The untimely filing of a Notice of Appeal is not a jurisdictional defect depriving the appellate courts of the ability to entertain an appeal.”); Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927, 931-32 (Ind.2006) (“Because the timeliness of filing does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tax Court, any objection, to the timeliness of filing is a procedural rather than jurisdictional error that can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time.”) (citing K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 542 ). 3 *1090 Section 3 — Assuming that INDOT failed to p | 5 | 5 |
KS v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Cf. In re Adaption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind.2014) (“The untimely filing of a Notice of Appeal is not a jurisdictional defect depriving the appellate courts of the ability to entertain an appeal.”); Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927, 931-32 (Ind.2006) (“Because the timeliness of filing does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tax Court, any objection, to the timeliness of filing is a procedural rather than jurisdictional error that can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time.”) (citing K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 542 ). 3 *1090 Section 3 — Assuming that INDOT failed to p 2009See KS., 849 N.E.2d at 542 . | 2 | 3 |
Kennedy v. Town of Gastongreen2 sentences2013See Kennedy v. Town of Gaston, 923 N.E.2d 988, 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Unsafe Building Act was a procedural rather than jurisdictional error and was thus waived when it was not raised in a timely fashion).2 Because the Commissioner raises this alleged procedural error for the first time on appeal, its claim in regard to exhaustion is waived. 2 The Commissioner claims that Kennedy is inconsistent with other, more recent, decisions issued by this court. 2013See Kennedy v. Town of Gaston, 923 N.E.2d 988, 994 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (holding that the alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Unsafe Building Act was a procedural rather than jurisdictional error and was thus waived when it was not raised in a timely fashion). 2 Because the Commissioner raises this alleged procedural error for the first time on appeal, its claim in regard to exhaustion is waived. | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R., N.R. v. K.G. and C.G.green1 sentence2016Cf. In re Adaption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind.2014) (“The untimely filing of a Notice of Appeal is not a jurisdictional defect depriving the appellate courts of the ability to entertain an appeal.”); Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927, 931-32 (Ind.2006) (“Because the timeliness of filing does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tax Court, any objection, to the timeliness of filing is a procedural rather than jurisdictional error that can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time.”) (citing K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 542 ). 3 *1090 Section 3 — Assuming that INDOT failed to p | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.