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.
49 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
French v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2014Turning to this issue of collateral estoppel, we note that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same.” Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind.Ct.App.2005)), trans. denied. 2014Turning to this issue of collateral estoppel, we note that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same.” Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. | 8 | 8 |
Sweeney v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 94 (Ind. 1998). [26] We note that a petitioner for post-conviction relief cannot escape the effect of claim preclusion merely by using different language to phrase an issue and define an alleged error. 2017Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 94 (Ind. 1998). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2017See Holmes v. State, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000) (“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.”). 2015“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” Holmes v. State, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000). | 6 | 8 |
Ben-Yisrayl v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” Ben–Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 . 2015The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute. [Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000)]. | 6 | 8 |
Scott v. Scottgreen2 sentences2016Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691, 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). 2004Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 5 | 5 |
Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herrgreen2 sentences2014Turning to this issue of collateral estoppel, we note that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same.” Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind.Ct.App.2005)), trans. denied. 2014Turning to this issue of collateral estoppel, we note that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same.” Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Adoption of Baby W.green2 sentences2016In re Adoption of Baby W., 796 N.E.2d 364, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 2005In Re Adoption of Baby W, 796 N.E.2d 364, 373 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), reh'g denied, trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied ), trans. denied. 2013Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied ), trans. denied. 2013Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.green2 sentences2012Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). 2007Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind.Ct.App.2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Wrinkles v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Wrinkles v. State, 776 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2002); Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1184 (Ind.2001). 2005See, e.g., Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1184 (Ind.2001); Wrinkles v. State 776 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Daniels v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Wrinkles v. State, 776 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2002); Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1184 (Ind.2001). 2005See, e.g., Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1184 (Ind.2001); Wrinkles v. State 776 N.E.2d 905, 908 (Ind.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Wagle v. Henrygreen2 sentences2000Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 94 (Ind.1998); Wagle v. Henry, 679 N.E.2d 1002, 1005 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). 2000Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 94 (Ind.1998); Wagle v. Henry, 679 N.E.2d 1002, 1005 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997); Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Mark M. Jervis v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017Id. 2017And, a petitioner for post- conviction relief cannot escape the effect of claim preclusion merely by using different language to phrase an issue and define an alleged error. “[W]here an issue, although differently designated, was previously considered and determined upon a criminal defendant’s direct appeal, the State may defend against defendant’s post-conviction relief petition on grounds of prior adjudication or [res judicata].” Jervis v. State, 28 N.E.3d 361, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (internal citations omitted). [8] On direct appeal, Cole specifically contended that “the tr | 1 | 2 |
Saunders v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“Res judicata mandates that when an appellate court decides a legal issue, both the trial court and the court on appeal are bound by Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1503-PC-119 | December 22, 2015 Page 4 of 9 that determination in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and relatively similar facts.” Saunders v. State, 794 N.E.2d 523, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Gill v. Pollertgreen1 sentence2014State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000). 4 Res judicata dictates that “a judgment rendered on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties or those in privity with them on the same claim or demand.” Gill v. Pollert, 810 N.E.2d 1050, 1057 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Sullivan v. American Cas. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, eg., Johnson, 827 N.E.2d at 551 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2014Id. at 1194 . | 4 | 2008–2016 |
Pina v. Cambra
green
2 sentences2015“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” Ben–Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 . 2012“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” Ben–Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 . | 2 | 2012–2015 |
Riddle v. Liz Claiborne
green
1 sentence2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1412-CR-580 | December 9, 2015 Page 6 of 10 State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1067 , 121 S. Ct. 2220 (2001). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Vasta v. United States
green
1 sentence2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1412-CR-580 | December 9, 2015 Page 6 of 10 State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1067 , 121 S. Ct. 2220 (2001). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Robinson v. State
green
1 sentence2015“Use of the statutory motion to correct sentence should thus be narrowly confined to claims apparent from the face of the sentencing judgment, and the ‘facially erroneous’ prerequisite should . . . be strictly applied . . . .” Id. [12] With respect to the arguments regarding res judicata, the doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.