6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adrian Durden v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2024“An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable on appeal, if it made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. at 652 . 2020“An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable on appeal, if it made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Durden, 99 N.E.3d at 652 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Curtis v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143, 1148 (Ind. 2011) (finding an appellant must allege fundamental error on appeal and waives the issue if he raises it for the first time in a reply brief). | 1 | 1 |
R.W. v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018“The fundamental error exception is extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” R.W. v. State, 975 N.E.2d 407, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Fundamental Error Finally, Aljarah asks that we review the issue for fundamental error. “[T]o constitute fundamental error, an error must be blatant and the potential harm must be so substantial and apparent that to ignore it would clearly constitute a denial of due process.” Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Phillips v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 87 . *427 However, we will examine this issue for fundamental error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.