Case law

Ross v. State

9 Ind. App. 35 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1894

And so, if we should grant that the use of the word “avocation” in the statute under construction, even in connection with the qualifying word “usual,” is not authorized by lexicographers or good writers, in the sense in … It is further contended, however, that the evidence falls far short of establishing the charge in the particular last mentioned.

Austin G. Pittman v. State of Indiana

9 N.E.3d 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2014

Although we may reconsider our previous rulings on motions, we decline to do so in the absence of clear authority establishing that our earlier ruling was erroneous as a matter of law. State v. … Here, the record clearly indicates that Pittman served his petition on the Boone County Prosecutor, thereby discharging his duties under Criminal Rule 18.

Monroe v. City of Bluffton

31 Ind. App. 269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1903

Spaulding, a duly qualified practicing physician, written authority to act as such health officer during Dr. Horne’s absence, after which Dr. … App. 98 , cited by counsel for appellee, but they are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. Those opinions expressly indicate that circumstances' might exist that would require a different holding.

Terre Haute Trust Co. v. Scott, Rec.

94 Ind. App. 461 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1932

as executor of said will, and also as trustee thereunder, and is now the duly qualified and acting trustee under said will. … This clearly appears, but the transactions are not to be tested in this way unless the statute has abrogated the rule; for, in any given case where there was no statute, it might easily and conclusively be made to appear

State Ex Rel. Bodine v. Elkhart County Election Board

466 N.E.2d 773 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1984

Finally, appellants contend that a sufficient factual basis establishes a waiver or estoppel Of the 15-day time limit for bringing mandamus proceedings. … The Indiana statutes dealing with election recounts, contests, and mandamus proceedings clearly fall into the class of laws referred to as "nonclaim statutes."

Tolliver v. State

922 N.E.2d 1272 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2010

Although a witness may not be qualified to offer expert testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, the witness may be qualified as a "skilled witness." Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905, 922 (Ind.2003). … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances before the trial court.

Morrison v. State

542 N.E.2d 564 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1989

Also, Judge Trautman, having previously disqualified herself, was not qualified to reassume jurisdiction. … Burton's knowledge or his expertise in discerning virginity, his testimony clearly regards the past sexual conduct of the victim, which, as discussed above, is barred by the rape shield statute. *572 Accordingly, Defendant

Indiana Republican State Committee v. Slaymaker

614 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1993

The constitutionality of this public funding scheme was established in Libertarian Party of Indiana v. Packard (7th (7th Cir.1984), 741 F.2d 981 , and is not at issue here. … Clearly, however, neither IND.CODE 9-18-15 nor IND.CODE 4-13-2-9(b) anticipated the situation confronting us today, in which the intended recipient of the PLP funds refused to accept them and returned them to the State; for

Renaissance Associates I L.P. v. City Of Hammond, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2026

[25] Hammond responded to Renaissance’s motion by asserting immunity from liability under the common law and ITCA. … As in Armour, the administrative expenses in determining who qualified for the refunds would be high.

Jennings v. State

723 N.E.2d 970 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2000

Reversal is appropriate only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Roeder v. State, 696 N.E.2d 62, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). … In this instance, the profile report qualifies as a business record properly admitted under the business records exception to hearsay.

Eric Byrd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2016

Appellate Rule 65(D), and Tax Court this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

Roberts v. Roberts

644 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1994

The court held that these facts do not establish a substantial and continuing change in cireum-stances because "{the amount of additional support Beverly's new companion provided her was not established nor was the nature … Duane [Beverly's ex-husband] only established Beverly was cohabiting with her boyfriend.

Seay v. Erwin

840 N.E.2d 385 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2006

[Katharine] is also qualified to work in retail, and seems to have little trouble getting a retail sales job. 14. … A trial court's findings of fact will be found clearly erroneous only when the record is devoid of evidence or reasonable inferences to support them.

Richard Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2019

The prosecutor stated that, in addition to scientific knowledge, a person can qualify as an expert based upon technical skills or specialized knowledge. … Brown asked to approach, and the court stated in part “[h]e is a technician,” “he is not an expert on sound,” “[h]e’s simply qualified as the person who knows how to run it,” and “he’s certainly qualified

Wright v. City of Gary

963 N.E.2d 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2012

Gardner determined that she was fully qualified for the GFCSC’s administrative assistant position. … diminish that policy as the GFCSC’s chairman determined that Wright was fully qualified for the position.

Peabody Coal Co. v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

606 N.E.2d 1306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1992

To the extent the ALJ relied on IC. 13-4.1-5-5(b) (revision of permits allowed), 13-4.1-4-8(a) (burden of establish ing compliance for permit revisions) and 310 LA.C. 12-5-64(c)(1) (requirements for best available material … Clearly, this provision puts the burden on Peabody to show that its proposed revision on use of the best available material will be in compliance with SMCRA.

Hughes v. State

481 N.E.2d 135 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1985

The basis of the motion at trial was hearsay, but here Hughes argues that Manley was not qualified as an expert. … Breathalyzer tests are clearly admissible. Had objection been made to the lack of a proper foundation in this case, such foundation could then have been supplied.

Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirment System

2 N.E.3d 814 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2014

This is not unreasonable, but it is not clearly dictated by the words of the statute. … The court found: The legislature did clearly want to differentiate the award of additional benefits based upon degree of impairment. The legislature also clearly set a range for that additional benefit of 10% to 45%.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship, C.S., Minor Child, A.S., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2019

We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. … Reviewing whether the evidence “clearly and convincingly” supports the findings, or the findings “clearly and convincingly” support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the evidence. Id.

Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.

963 N.E.2d 534 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2012

And here, The Star has clearly chosen to keep the identity of “DownWith-TheColts” confidential. The Star did not waive its privilege. … Publication has clearly been established in this case. Additionally, damages may be presumed in an action for defamation per se “ ‘as a natural and probable consequence’ of the per se defamation.” Id. (quoting Rambo v.