Michael L. Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that parties represented by counsel “are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief” (citation omitted)
• holding that consideration of an embedded sub-issue on which there was supplemental briefing was necessary to avoid manifest injustice
• holding that only “extraordinary circumstances” may justify a departure from the principle of party representation
• holding that the appellate court \departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion\
• holding that 23 the circuit court violated the party presentation principle when it appointed “three [third-party] 24 amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel[.]”
• holding that only “extraordinary circumstances” may justify departure from the principle of party representation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).