Carr v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that timeliness is important on recusal issues and “a party may not lie in wait and only raise the recusal issue after receiving an adverse decision”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McDonald v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2007-02-28· cited 4×
• Jeffrey R. Chaney v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2016-12-29
• Kyle Andrews v. Gilliam Moorman (mem. dec)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2017-05-30
• Edward A. Grady v. Michael M. Yoder, Robert E. Kirsch, The Dekko Foundation, Erica Dekko, Tad Dekko, Phil Salsberry, Dean Kruse, The Kruse Foundation, JPMorgan Chase Bank (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2020-12-29

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Tyson v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1993-10-15· cited 37×
• Southwood v. Carlson
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1999-01-19· cited 25×
• Hammond v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1992-06-30· cited 14×