Sanders v. Carson

15 Citing cases

  1. Greer v. State

    685 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. 1997)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that Post-Conviction Rule 2 did not permit belated consideration of appeals from post-judgment petitions

    By following the procedure outlined in the prior version of P-C.R. 2(1), an appellant from a criminal conviction could (and still can), and an appellant from an adverse determination in other proceedings of a criminal nature arguably could (but now cannot), invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court over his or her particular case. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) ("Jurisdiction of a particular case refers to the right, authority, and power to hear and determine a specific case within that class of cases over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction.") See also Harp v. Ind. Dep't Of Highways, 585 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); Behme v. Behme, 519 N.E.2d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Jurisdiction over a particular case is waived if not raised in a timely fashion.

  2. Nu-Life Prods. v. Krieg Devault LLP

    No. 23A-CC-2447 (Ind. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

    Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 903-904 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied; see also Baker &Daniels, LLP v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 924 N.E.2d 130, 140-141 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (observing that counsel have a duty to keep apprised of the status of matters pending before the court) (citing Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) ("This court has held that it is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court.")), trans. denied.

  3. Richards v. State

    No. 23A-PC-484 (Ind. App. Mar. 15, 2024)

    "[I]t is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995).

  4. Baker & Daniels, LLP v. Coachmen Industries, Inc.

    924 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 24 times
    Holding equitable considerations supported the trial court's decision to grant plaintiff's motion to set aside order dismissing its claim

    The trial court questioned the mail processes which had led to lack of notice but also found that notice had been mailed and observed that counsel for Coachmen had had a duty to keep apprised of the status of matters pending before the court. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) ("This court has held that it is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court."). The trial court further observed that the "better practice" would have been for Coachmen's counsel to file a copy of the Standstill Agreement with the court.

  5. Miller v. Hague Ins. Co.

    871 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Explaining that "[w]hile we are reluctant to overrule orders decided by the motions panel, this court has inherent authority to reconsider any decision while an appeal remains in fieri"

    "[I]t is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). While the filing of a brief one day late has been considered a minor violation of our appellate rules, the filing of a brief thirty-eight days late is not.

  6. Cockrell v. Hawkins

    764 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    Rather, Cockrell proceeded to present evidence regarding his right to an easement of necessity, and the trial court entered a judgment on the merits. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). Because Cockrell's claim failed on the merits, Cockrell's request for an easement of necessity across Smith's land failed, despite Smith's absence from the trial.

  7. Grubnich v. Renner

    746 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 17 times
    Finding a right to post-judgment interest even where the trial court did not specifically award it

    "When a court lacks jurisdiction over the particular case, the judgment is voidable, requiring proper and timely objection to the court's exercise of jurisdiction or it is waived." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). Grubnich has waived his jurisdictional argument by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity — at the time of the trial court's March 9, 1999 order.

  8. TMC Transportation, Inc. v. Maslanka

    744 N.E.2d 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 11 times

    Nonetheless, the confusion has persisted and two different standards of review have been applied since 1982. In Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995), for instance, another panel of this court stated, "Where a trial court involuntarily dismisses an action after presentation of a plaintiff's case, we consider only evidence most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether there was substantial evidence of probative value to establish the material elements of the plaintiff's complaint." That standard of review is inappropriate given the trial court's ability to weigh the evidence.

  9. In re K.T

    743 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court erred in granting grandparents visitation privileges ancillary to a guardianship which was simultaneously closed

    By contrast, jurisdiction of the case refers to the trial court's right, authority, and power to hear and decide a specific case within the class of cases over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction. Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). A judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the case is voidable, and requires a timely objection, or the lack of jurisdiction over the case is considered waived.

  10. Indiana Insurance Company v. Ins Co of N.A.

    734 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 43 times

    It is the duty of an attorney to keep apprised of the status of pending matters before the court. Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). An attorney has a duty to exercise due diligence by regularly checking court records to ascertain the status of pending cases and a failure by an attorney to perform this duty falls within the category of neglect.