Case law

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.

Merimee v. Brumfield

72 Ind. Dec. 765 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1979

Whether a police officer is immune from liability in an action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution under the Tort Claims Act. 2. … This raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was made to only express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.A.G. (Minor Child) C.L. (Mother) and A.G. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2018

“Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). … Moreover, DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that there is a reasonable probability the parent’s behavior will not change. Id.

Storey Oil Co. v. American States Insurance

622 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1993

The nexus is clearly apparent — without the alleged injury to the land, there would be no cause of action between Storey and American States. … In Lowe , the court clearly stated that the forum non conveniens provisions of Ind.Trial Rule 4.4(C) do not provide for intrastate transfers of venue. Id. at 772 .

Johnson v. State

423 N.E.2d 623 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1981

It cannot be contended that immunity from prosecution on two additional charges could have substantially increased Hicks’ motive for testifying. … The trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to order separate trials on the basis that a defendant may be found guilty by association where the evidence presents clearly defined and distinctive roles for each

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."

Darnell Cleveland v. State of Indiana

129 N.E.3d 227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2019

Despite Cleveland’s insistence, there is no difference between raw marijuana or burnt marijuana for purposes of establishing probable cause. … [40] In summary, I have little trouble concluding that possession of a handgun without a license qualifies as misuse pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-47-3- 2.

City of Gary v. Redmond

489 N.E.2d 543 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1986

Section 1988 , the only provision under which failure to give prior notice might establish a cause of action is 42 U.S.C. … essential elements of a Section 1988 action as: "(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities

Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.

11 N.E.3d 508 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2014

Indiana Insurance argues that there is no evidence to establish that it dealt with George and Patricia in bad faith. … While we agree with Patricia on the merits of this issue, this does not establish conscious wrongdoing on Indiana Insurance’s part. B.

Head v. COM'R, IND. DEPT. OF ENV. MGT.

626 N.E.2d 518 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1993

Clearly, Head has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. III. … An expert may be qualified by practical experience as well as by formal training and whether he is qualified as an expert is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Willis v. State (1987), Ind.

Orr v. State

472 N.E.2d 627 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Therefore, the evidence here clearly established a proper chain of custody. (2) Manner in Which Blood Test Was Conducted The second prong of Orr's challenge to the admissibility of the blood test results is the accuracy of … On the contrary, there was clearly evidence presented linking the defendant's intoxication to the accident.

Bret Lee Sisson v. State of Indiana

985 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012

Evidence was also presented that Sturdivant was initially uncooperative with police and that he had been granted immunity for his testimony. … Thus, the motion was clearly untimely under Crim. R. 12(D)(1).

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.

Dean v. Dean

439 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1982

Pascevieh, and Trial Rule 52 permits a judgment based on special findings to be set aside only when clearly erroneous. … However, Indiana case law does not require that a trial court establish the value of each marital asset before distribution.

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.

Donaldson v. State

904 N.E.2d 294 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2009

This notice listed ten of Donaldson's "qualifying traffic offenses" which had occurred between 1997 and 2005, and stated that Donaldson had additional qualifying offenses. … An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id.

Crist v. K-Mart Corp.

653 N.E.2d 140 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1995

Dorsey Corp. (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 1191 , trans. denied, we considered the question of who qualifies as a seller within the meaning of the Act. … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous “when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them.” Id.

Wilson v. State

169 Ind. App. 297 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 1976

While we doubt that the paycheck in question qualifies as a public record within the purview of this statute, we need not so decide. … We think the position taken by McCormick and the federal rules is proper and clearly supported by the decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Court of this state.

Patterson v. State

729 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2000

This testimony was sufficient to establish that the scientific principles underlying PCR analysis are sound and that Black was qualified to testify. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. … Further, DNA evidence established that Patterson’s blood was on the window curtain inside Maciejewski’s home. This evidence is sufficient to establish that Patterson committed the crime of residential entry.

John F. Harris, III v. State of Indiana

981 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2013

establish. … Clearly, the escape conviction does not fall within subparagraph (b)(3)(C).