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.
42 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. DeLarosagreen2 sentences2016Burke v. DeLarosa, 661 N.E.2d 43, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. [11] After the Defendants and Lawrence were served with Jones’s complaint, Lawrence apparently took the complaint and summons for each named defendant to Attorney Lewis, who Lawrence asserted was an attorney who represented him in another matter. 2012See Burke v. DeLarosa, 661 N.E.2d 43, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. | 5 | 5 |
Butler v. Shipshewana Auction, Inc.green2 sentences2019We conclude that the neglect by Li in failing to file an answer to NextGear’s complaint was excusable. [24] However, “‘[t]o prevail on a [Trial Rule] 60(B) motion, the petitioner is not only required to show mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect, but also must show that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action.’” Flying J, 720 N.E.2d at 1250 (quoting Butler v. Shipshewana Auction, Inc., 697 N.E.2d 1285, 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). 1999However, “[t]o prevail on a T.R. 60(B) motion, the petitioner is not only required to show mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect, but also must show that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action.” Butler v. Shipshewana Auction, Inc. (1998) Ind.App., 697 N.E.2d 1285, 1289 . | 3 | 6 |
Nwannunu v. Weichman & Associates, P.C.green2 sentences2002Nwannunu v. Weichman and Assocs., P.C., 770 N.E.2d 871, 879 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). 2002Nwannunu v. Weiehman and Assocs., P.C., 770 N.E.2d 871, 879 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Companygreen2 sentences1979See TR. 55(C). 2 In Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Company, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 , Judge Hoffman enunciated the burden imposed on Donald to set aside a default judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect: It is incumbent upon a party seeking to set aside a default judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect to show two things: 1) that the judgment was taken as a result of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and 2) that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action. 1979See TR. 55(C). 2 In Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Company, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 , Judge Hoffman enunciated the burden imposed on Donald to set aside a default judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect: It is incumbent upon a party seeking to set aside a default judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect to show two things: 1) that the judgment was taken as a result of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and 2) that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action. | 1 | 6 |
Marriage of Langdon v. Langdongreen2 sentences1996Langdon v. Langdon, 641 N.E.2d 673, 674 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). 1996Langdon v. Langdon, 641 N.E.2d 673, 674 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Holleygreen1 sentence2012In re Marriage of Holley, 659 N.E.2d 581, 583 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vanjani v. Federal Land Bank of Louisville
green
2 sentences2019The party seeking to set aside a default judgment must make a “prima facie showing of a good and meritorious defense.” Id. at 671 . [8] On appeal, Thomaston argues that his request for settlement conference should have been granted pursuant to Indiana Code section 32-30-10.5-10. 2013Id. at 671 . | 4 | 1990–2019 |
Chelovich v. Ruff & Silvian Agency
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1993State, DNR, 583 N.E.2d at 163 (citing Cornelius v. State (1991), Ind.App., 575 N.E.2d 20, 21 ; Chelovich v. Ruff & Sylvian Agency (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 890, 892 ). | 3 | 1993–1994 |
In Re Paternity of Baby Doe
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Sanders v. Kerwin
green
2 sentences1984But see Sanders v. Kerwin (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 668 requiring the defendant to also show he has a good and meritorious defense before allowing relief from default judgment. 1982Plough v. Farmers State Bank, etc., (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471, 474 ; Sanders v. Kerwin, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 668, 671 ; Adams v. Luros, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1199, 1201 . | 2 | 1982–1984 |
Plough v. Farmers State Bank of Henry County
green
2 sentences1983Plough v. Farmers State Bank, (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471 ; Fitzgerald v. Brown, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 586 , 344 N.E.2d 309 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Company, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 . 1982Plough v. Farmers State Bank, etc., (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471, 474 ; Sanders v. Kerwin, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 668, 671 ; Adams v. Luros, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1199, 1201 . | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Fitzgerald v. Brown
green
2 sentences1983Plough v. Farmers State Bank, (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471 ; Fitzgerald v. Brown, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 586 , 344 N.E.2d 309 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Company, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 . 1983Plough v. Farmers State Bank, (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471 ; Fitzgerald v. Brown, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 586 , 344 N.E.2d 309 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Company, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 . | 2 | 1980–1983 |
Strickland v. O'Rear
green
2 sentences1972As appéllant’s motion to set aside judgment was insufficient, in view of its failure to allege appellant had a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action upon which the judgment was based, it is accordingly our conclusion that the lower court’s action in overruling the motion to set aside judgment was not error.” See also, Strickland v. O’Rear (1961), 134 Ind. App. 247 , 176 N. E. 2d 902 . 1972As appéllant’s motion to set aside judgment was insufficient, in view of its failure to allege appellant had a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action upon which the judgment was based, it is accordingly our conclusion that the lower court’s action in overruling the motion to set aside judgment was not error.” See also, Strickland v. O’Rear (1961), 134 Ind. App. 247 , 176 N. E. 2d 902 . | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Cantwell v. Cantwell
green
2 sentences1972Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957), 237 Ind. 168 , 143 N. E. 2d 275 (cert. denied, 356 U.S. 225 , 78 S. Ct. 700 , 2 L. 1972Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957), 237 Ind. 168 , 143 N. E. 2d 275 (cert. denied, 356 U.S. 225 , 78 S. Ct. 700 , 2 L. | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Teegardin v. Maver's, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Additionally, “[a] movant seeking to set aside a judgment via [Trial Rule 60(B)] must also establish that he has a good and meritorious defense to the judgment.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Flying J, Inc. v. Jeter
green
1 sentence2019We conclude that the neglect by Li in failing to file an answer to NextGear’s complaint was excusable. [24] However, “‘[t]o prevail on a [Trial Rule] 60(B) motion, the petitioner is not only required to show mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect, but also must show that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action.’” Flying J, 720 N.E.2d at 1250 (quoting Butler v. Shipshewana Auction, Inc., 697 N.E.2d 1285, 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bennett v. Andry
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright
green
1 sentence2006In Kmart, a panel of this court held that in order to prevail upon a motion to set aside a default judgment based upon, in part, excusable neglect, a party must not only show excusable neglect, but must also show that he has a good and meritorious defense to the cause of action. 719 N.E.2d at 1258 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Cornelius v. State
green
1 sentence1993State, DNR, 583 N.E.2d at 163 (citing Cornelius v. State (1991), Ind.App., 575 N.E.2d 20, 21 ; Chelovich v. Ruff & Sylvian Agency (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 890, 892 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State, Department of Natural Resources v. Van Keppel
green
1 sentence1993State, DNR, 583 N.E.2d at 163 (citing Cornelius v. State (1991), Ind.App., 575 N.E.2d 20, 21 ; Chelovich v. Ruff & Sylvian Agency (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 890, 892 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Adams v. Luros
green
1 sentence1982Plough v. Farmers State Bank, etc., (1982) Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 471, 474 ; Sanders v. Kerwin, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 668, 671 ; Adams v. Luros, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1199, 1201 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Moe v. Koe
green
2 sentences1976Moe v. Koe (1975), 165 Ind. App. 98 , 330 N.E.2d 761 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co. (1972), 152 Ind. App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 . 1976Moe v. Koe (1975), 165 Ind. App. 98 , 330 N.E.2d 761 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co. (1972), 152 Ind. App. 665 , 284 N.E.2d 869 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Woodard v. Killen
neutral
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Hill v. Crump
neutral
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra ; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Buck v. Havens
green
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra ; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Nord v. Marty
neutral
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra ; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Nash v. Cars
green
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra ; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rooker v. Bruce
green
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Heaton v. Peterson
neutral
2 sentences1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . 1975Heaton v. Peakerson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1 , 31 N.E. 1133 ; Kreczmer v. Allied Construction Co., supra; Woodard v. Killen (1925), 196 Ind. 570 , 148 N.E. 195 ; Nash v. Cars (1883), 92 Ind. 216 ; Nord v. Marty (1877), 56 Ind. 531, 535 ; Buck v. Havens (1872), 40 Ind. 221 ; Hill v. Crump (1865), 24 Ind. 291, 294 ; Rooker v. Bruce (1908), 171 Ind. 86, 89 , 85 N.E. 351 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Cantwell v. Cantwell
neutral
2 sentences1972Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957), 237 Ind. 168 , 143 N. E. 2d 275 (cert. denied, 356 U.S. 225 , 78 S. Ct. 700 , 2 L. 1972Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957), 237 Ind. 168 , 143 N. E. 2d 275 (cert. denied, 356 U.S. 225 , 78 S. Ct. 700 , 2 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Meyer v. Wilson neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Roy v. Scales neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| McClellan v. Beatty green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Cicero Township v. Picken neutral | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.