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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Ind. Trial Rule 4(A) (“The court acquires jurisdiction over a party or person who under these rules commences or joins in the action, is served with summons or enters an appearance, or who is subjected to the power of the court under any other law”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (citing Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)) (stating that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as trained counsel, and must follow all procedural rules). [10] Affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Ind. Trial Rule 4(A) (“The court acquires jurisdiction over a party or person who under these rules commences or joins in the action, is served with summons or enters an appearance, or who is subjected to the power of the court under any other law”) (emphasis added); see also Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (citing Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)) (stating that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as trained counsel, and must follow all procedural rules). [10] Affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Pelo v. Franklin College of Indianagreen2 sentences2003See Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 365, 366 (Ind.1999) ("We perceive no valid reason to disregard the intent of parties to a release regardless of the theory under which multiple potentially liable parties may be pursued.") In reviewing the release signed by Depew, we apply well-settled principles. 2003See Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 365, 366 (Ind.1999) ("We perceive no valid reason to disregard the intent of parties to a release regardless of the theory under which multiple potentially liable parties may be pursued.") In reviewing the release signed by Depew, we apply well-settled principles. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Huffman, 643 N.E.2d at 901 . 3 Hopkins argues that his case is similar to Turner v. State, 751 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct. *706 App.2001), in which we applied the Huffman exception. > In Turner, two co-defendants separately appealed, and each raised the issue of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminal recklessness. 2002Huffman, 643 N.E.2d at 901 . 3 Hopkins argues that his case is similar to Turner v. State, 751 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct. *706 App.2001), in which we applied the Huffman exception. > In Turner, two co-defendants separately appealed, and each raised the issue of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminal recklessness. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Huffman
green
2 sentences2002Huffman, 643 N.E.2d at 901 . 3 Hopkins argues that his case is similar to Turner v. State, 751 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct. *706 App.2001), in which we applied the Huffman exception. > In Turner, two co-defendants separately appealed, and each raised the issue of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminal recklessness. 2002Huffman, 643 N.E.2d at 901 . 3 Hopkins argues that his case is similar to Turner v. State, 751 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct. *706 App.2001), in which we applied the Huffman exception. > In Turner, two co-defendants separately appealed, and each raised the issue of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminal recklessness. | 2 | 1996–2002 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2015Huffman appeals pro se.1 Discussion and Decision Citing Indiana Code section 33-43-1-92 and Johnson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), Huffman argues that the trial court lacked discretion to deny his motion. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Huffman v. State
green
1 sentence2013Furthermore, section (b) of the same rule expressly states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Rule, it comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory, or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence and it shall be used exclusively in place of them.” Id. at 659 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Speedway Realty Co. v. Grasshoff Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2004However, one of the bases for Huffman's challenge to Lilly's permits was that "IDEM failed to address health risks to the residential use of contiguous property from toxicology research and other Lilly activities involving discharge of water." (Appellant's App. at 48.) In Huffman's response to the motion to dismiss, she stated that she "is extremely concerned" by the permit "because she has in fact managed this property since 1987 and that responsibility requires that she and her agents be on the property with frequency." ( Id. at 33, 216 N.E.2d 845 .) Under the 12(B)(6) standard, a motion to | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.