6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roscoe v. Roscoegreen1 sentence2009Moore points to case law in which we held that the failure to act on a motion to correct error within the rule's prescribed time limit "extinguishes the court's authority to rule on the motion and any subsequent ruling is a nullity." See Johnson v. Johnson, 882 N.E.2d 223, 226-27 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Roscoe v. Roscoe, 673 N.E.2d 820, 821 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2009Moore points to case law in which we held that the failure to act on a motion to correct error within the rule's prescribed time limit "extinguishes the court's authority to rule on the motion and any subsequent ruling is a nullity." See Johnson v. Johnson, 882 N.E.2d 223, 226-27 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Roscoe v. Roscoe, 673 N.E.2d 820, 821 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Kindred v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Moreover, in Kindred v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1161, 1173 (Ind.1989), our supreme court considered the argument that the trial court erred in its ruling on a defendant's "motion for discharge within thirty days, as required by Trial Rule 58.1(A)" The court did not indicate that T.R. 58.2(A) was inapplicable, but rather it concluded that there was no error in the trial court having denied the TR. 58.2(A) motion because it "was filed prematurely," before thirty days had passed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paulsen v. Malone
green
2 sentences2012Here, because the trial court held two hearings on Chappell’s motion to correct error, we find this case distinguishable from Paulsen v. Malone, 880 N.E.2d 312 (2008). 2012Here, because the trial court held two hearings on Chappell’s motion to correct error, we find this case distinguishable from Paulsen v. Malone, 880 N.E.2d 312 (2008). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In Re: The Matter of D.J. and G.J., Children in Need of Services Gr.J. (Mother) and J.J. (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences1983Reed v. State (1895), 141 Ind. 116 , 40 N.E. 525 ; Welsh, Executor v. Brown (1983), 8 Ind.App. 421 , 35 N.E. 921 . 1983Reed v. State (1895), 141 Ind. 116 , 40 N.E. 525 ; Welsh, Executor v. Brown (1983), 8 Ind.App. 421 , 35 N.E. 921 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Welsh v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences1983Reed v. State (1895), 141 Ind. 116 , 40 N.E. 525 ; Welsh, Executor v. Brown (1983), 8 Ind.App. 421 , 35 N.E. 921 . 1983Reed v. State (1895), 141 Ind. 116 , 40 N.E. 525 ; Welsh, Executor v. Brown (1983), 8 Ind.App. 421 , 35 N.E. 921 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.