Matter of Adoption of H.S

35 Citing cases

  1. Bielski v. Zorn

    627 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. T.C. 1994)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that constitutional challenge to state system of real property taxation is a matter solely for judicial determination

    "Jurisdiction of the subject matter involves the POWER of the court to hear and determine a general class of cases to which the proceedings belong." Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1991), Ind.Tax, 583 N.E.2d 214, 216 (quoting In Re Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). The State Board also asserts the Landowners have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted within the meaning of T.R. 12(B)(6).

  2. K.A. v. K.O. (In re N.A.)

    No. 21A-AD-2743 (Ind. App. Jul. 5, 2022)

    [ยถ8] Subject matter jurisdiction involves the power of the court to hear and determine a general class of cases to which the proceedings belong. Matter of Adoption of H.S., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780 (Ind.Ct.App. 1985). The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, in any manner, even on appeal.

  3. Harp v. Indiana Department of Highways

    585 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 42 times
    Distinguishing motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction from lack of jurisdiction over a particular case

    According to Indiana's well-settled standard, subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine the general class of cases to which the proceedings before it belong. State ex rel. Hight v. Marion Superior Court (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 267, 269; Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780; State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101; State ex rel. Indianapolis v. Brennan (1952), 231 Ind. 492, 497, 109 N.E.2d 409, 411 (citing Rhode Island v. Massachusetts (1838), 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 717, 9 L.Ed. 1233). "The only relevant inquiry in determining whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether th[e] kind of claim the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or statute."

  4. Largen v. Largen

    535 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    A court without subject matter jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment. In Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780, reh. denied, Judge Neal, speaking for the First District, discussed jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the subject matter involves the power of the court to hear and determine a general class of cases to which the proceedings belong.

  5. Associates Inv. Co. v. Claeys

    533 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 11 times
    Declining to address ERISA preemption for the first time on appeal, noting that "[o]ne cannot sit idly by, permit the court to proceed under the wrong law" and then "complain because the court" did so

    Accord, Singleton v. Wulff (1976), 428 U.S. 106, 120, 98 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 48 L.Ed.2d 826. However, a court without subject matter jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment and the question of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. E.g. Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780, reh. denied. In Adoption of H.S. Judge Neal, speaking for the First District, discussed jurisdiction and the application of state law.

  6. Wilson v. K.W

    497 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that the trial court has discretion to set aside a default judgment under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) where the defendant had no actual knowledge of the action and was served only by publication

    However the trial judge has no jurisdiction to accept amendments or supplements after the 60 day time limit has elapsed. Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 779-780. In this case, the trial court rendered its final judgment on September 10, 1985.

  7. Covance Cent. Lab. Servs. LP v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

    204 N.E.3d 348 (Ind. T.C. 2023)

    Indeed, the only relevant inquiry in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is "whether th[e] kind of claim the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or statute." Matter of Adoption of H.S., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (emphases added) (citation omitted). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine a particular class of cases.

  8. Harlan Sprague v. Dept. of State Revenue

    583 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. T.C. 1991)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that principle of equitable restraint in FairAssessment would bar state courts from hearing section 1983 state tax challenges if state remedy were adequate

    According to Indiana's well-settled standard: "Jurisdiction of the subject matter involves the POWER of the court to hear and determine a general class of cases to which the proceedings belong." In re Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780. Regardless of whether the court is one of limited or general jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction is not simply jurisdiction over the particular case occupying the court, but is jurisdiction over the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.

  9. Pivarnik v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

    636 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. 1994)   Cited 28 times
    Finding the subject matter and remedy the same in two actions where "every claim involves a factual determination of who is liable for the rupture of NIPSCO's pipeline," and "[a]ll parties are seeking [money] damages for their various injuries that resulted from the pipeline rupture"

    P.S. by Harbin v. W.S. (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 969, 976. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to decide particular kinds of cases and depends neither on the "the intricacies of pleading," Young, 263 Ind. at 356-57, 332 N.E.2d at 101, nor on the correctness of any decision made by a court. State ex. rel. Hight v. Marion Super. Ct. (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 267, 269; In re Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780. The Starke Circuit Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in this case does not depend, then, on the correctness vel non either of NIPSCO's decision to file a third-party complaint against Appellants or of its own decisions concerning the pleadings in the case.

  10. State ex Rel. Hight v. Marion Super. Ct.

    547 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. 1989)   Cited 24 times

    "It does not depend upon the regularity of the proceedings or the correctness of the decision." Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind. App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780. Ind. Code ยง 31-1-11.5-3(a) and (b) empower a trial court to hear causes of action for dissolution and for child support.