time fixed rule in Indiana

1997Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.1982) (reversible error to fail to hold hearing when requirement for a hearing is clear); Otte v. Tessman, 426 N.E.2d 660 (Ind.1981) (language requiring service at least ten days “before the time fixed for the hearing” made hearing on summary judgment mandatory); Wilson v. State, 472 N.E.2d 932 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (“after a hearing on the motion” language created duty on the part of the trial court to hold a hearing).

1984In Otte v. Tessman (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 660 , our supreme court found the following language mandated a hearing on summary judgment as fized by the court: "The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing." TR. 56(C).

1925Ogle v. Edwards, Admr. (1893), 133 Ind. 358, 360 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Munce v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 263 , 118 N. E. 953 . *94 *93 Neither does the power to adopt rules extend to imposing on an applicant for a change of venue whose motion is not presented within the time fixed by a rule *94 of court, the obligation to set out in his affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court, facts showing that the motion has been made as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the cause for asking such change, in addition to averring that it is made “at the earliest time possible” after learning of the bi

1925Ogle v. Edwards, Admr. (1893), 133 Ind. 358, 360 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Munce v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 263 , 118 N. E. 953 . *94 *93 Neither does the power to adopt rules extend to imposing on an applicant for a change of venue whose motion is not presented within the time fixed by a rule *94 of court, the obligation to set out in his affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court, facts showing that the motion has been made as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the cause for asking such change, in addition to averring that it is made “at the earliest time possible” after learning of the bi

1997Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.1982) (reversible error to fail to hold hearing when requirement for a hearing is clear); Otte v. Tessman, 426 N.E.2d 660 (Ind.1981) (language requiring service at least ten days “before the time fixed for the hearing” made hearing on summary judgment mandatory); Wilson v. State, 472 N.E.2d 932 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (“after a hearing on the motion” language created duty on the part of the trial court to hold a hearing).

1997Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.1982) (reversible error to fail to hold hearing when requirement for a hearing is clear); Otte v. Tessman, 426 N.E.2d 660 (Ind.1981) (language requiring service at least ten days “before the time fixed for the hearing” made hearing on summary judgment mandatory); Wilson v. State, 472 N.E.2d 932 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (“after a hearing on the motion” language created duty on the part of the trial court to hold a hearing).

1961Upon the defendant’s [appellant’s] testimony that no new facts were learned by him on January 9, 1960, as set out in his affidavit, the *233 Court now overrules the defendant’s affidavit for change of venue from the judge.” Appellant contends that in a criminal case if a motion for change of judge is in proper legal form and alleges it was made and filed as soon as the bias and prejudice of the judge were ascertained, it was error for the court to deny the change of judge, there being no discretion on the part of the court to exercise in considering the change of venue, citing: Asher v. State

1961Upon the defendant’s [appellant’s] testimony that no new facts were learned by him on January 9, 1960, as set out in his affidavit, the *233 Court now overrules the defendant’s affidavit for change of venue from the judge.” Appellant contends that in a criminal case if a motion for change of judge is in proper legal form and alleges it was made and filed as soon as the bias and prejudice of the judge were ascertained, it was error for the court to deny the change of judge, there being no discretion on the part of the court to exercise in considering the change of venue, citing: Asher v. State

1925Ogle v. Edwards, Admr. (1893), 133 Ind. 358, 360 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Munce v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 263 , 118 N. E. 953 . *94 *93 Neither does the power to adopt rules extend to imposing on an applicant for a change of venue whose motion is not presented within the time fixed by a rule *94 of court, the obligation to set out in his affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court, facts showing that the motion has been made as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the cause for asking such change, in addition to averring that it is made “at the earliest time possible” after learning of the bi

1925Ogle v. Edwards, Admr. (1893), 133 Ind. 358, 360 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Munce v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 263 , 118 N. E. 953 . *94 *93 Neither does the power to adopt rules extend to imposing on an applicant for a change of venue whose motion is not presented within the time fixed by a rule *94 of court, the obligation to set out in his affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court, facts showing that the motion has been made as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the cause for asking such change, in addition to averring that it is made “at the earliest time possible” after learning of the bi

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1912Ogle v. Edwards (1893), 133 Ind. 358 , 33 N. E. 95 ; Bernhamer v. State (1890), 123 Ind. 577 , 24 N. E. 509 ; Rout v. Ninde (1889), 118 Ind. 123 , 20 N. E. 704 ; Moore v. Sargent (1887), 112 Ind. 484 , 14 N. E. 466 ; Shoemaker v. Smith (1881), 74 Ind. 71 ; Kurtz v. Howard (1880), 70 Ind. 174 . 7.

1911Rout v. Ninde (1887), 111 Ind. 597 ; Moulder v. Kempff (1888), 115 Ind. 459 ; Magduson v. Billings, supra; City of Columbus v. Strassner (1894), 138 Ind. 301 .

1911Rout v. Ninde (1887), 111 Ind. 597 ; Moulder v. Kempff (1888), 115 Ind. 459 ; Magduson v. Billings, supra; City of Columbus v. Strassner (1894), 138 Ind. 301 .

1911Rout v. Ninde (1887), 111 Ind. 597 ; Moulder v. Kempff (1888), 115 Ind. 459 ; Magduson v. Billings, supra; City of Columbus v. Strassner (1894), 138 Ind. 301 .

1911Rout v. Ninde (1887), 111 Ind. 597 ; Moulder v. Kempff (1888), 115 Ind. 459 ; Magduson v. Billings, supra; City of Columbus v. Strassner (1894), 138 Ind. 301 .