Case law

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.

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.

State Board of Tax Commissioners v. South Shore Marina

422 N.E.2d 723 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1981

That evidence clearly establishes the fifty boats were on Marina property on March 1, 1977. It also establishes the value of the fifty boats. … In the present case, the Board was clearly exercising its long established authority in seeking the information from Marina.

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.

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.

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.

Merritt v. State

822 N.E.2d 642 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2005

To qualify as a fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 , 755 (Ind.2002) (quoting Willey v. … The facts of this case establish that cocaine was found in Merritt's purse, which was located on the center console in between her driver's seat and the front passenger's seat.

Johnson v. Jacobs

970 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2011

As set forth above, the undisputed designated evidence in this case established that Eric should have taken Emily to school on March 5, 2007. … More particularly, the publication that Beth submitted clearly states that the materials are only proposals, and those documents provide that it was simply recommending that TSA develop a plan for implementing a *674 risk

Craig Neibert v. Jody A. Perdomo

54 N.E.3d 1046 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 18, 2016

Perhaps most importantly, Turner illustrates that to prevail, the aggrieved party need not establish an expectation of monetary payment for the services rendered. … After extended questioning and argument on the record, the trial court qualified Bruce as an expert concerning the value of renovation, excavation, and construction services, and Bruce was examined

Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. Pinnacle Media, LLC

811 N.E.2d 404 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2004

[Pinnacle] has restated that the property, upon which the sign is proposed to be located is owned by [HHPA], an entity established pursuant to IC 8-10-5. … The July 1999 letters to Pinnacle clearly reflect this.

South Bend Community School Corp. v. Lucas

881 N.E.2d 30 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2008

Contrary to the [ALJ’s] findings, the Head Start program clearly does not *32 meet the definition for a “school,” because it is a federal program that is not accredited by the Indiana state board of education nor does it … Head Start is a public entity established pursuant to an agreement between twelve public school corporations.

Sullivan Builders & Design, Inc. v. Home Lumber of New Haven, Inc.

834 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2005

Whether the trial court's judgment in favor of Home Lumber is clearly erroneous. … We will set aside the findings and the judgment only if they are clearly erroneous. See id.

Porter Development, LLC v. First National Bank of Valparaiso

837 N.E.2d 558 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2005

In support of their position Porter first argues that First National's fear of liability was unreasonable because First National was immune from any liability to Eagle Services pursuant to Indiana Code section 28-9-8-3(b) … Clearly, Porter was not denied the opportunity to be heard nor deprived of their property. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not error in finding that interpleader was appropriate. CROSS-APPEAL III.

Chism v. State

813 N.E.2d 402 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2004

Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in establishing conditions of probation. Id. Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State, 730 N.E.2d 705, 708 (Ind.2000), reh'g denied.

Bloomington Country Club, Inc. v. City of Bloomington Water & Wastewater Utilities

827 N.E.2d 1213 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2005

The IURC cited testimony in Cause No. 42088 as to how "cost of service allocation procedures" had been employed in establishing the irrigation rate. Id. … The privileges and immunities clause prohibits granting to a "citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." Inp. Congr. art. 1, § 28.

Haas v. Bush

894 N.E.2d 229 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2008

In the instant case, the evidence established Elaine was more likely than not to die from her lung cancer even if it had been diagnosed and treated in January 2002. The Estate was clearly unable to establish that Dr. … Haas also raises a constitutional challenge under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

City of Beech Grove v. Schmith

164 Ind. App. 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1975

the plans submitted at trial, Schmith’s intention is to renovate the interior of the building, rearrange certain rooms, and add two more bathroom facilities. *539 On April 16, 1973, the trial court held that the property qualified … Since this was the deciding issue on the case, the trial court’s exclusionary ruling was clearly an abuse of discretion, and thus reversible error.

Smalley v. State

732 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2000

Utilizing this definition of “delivery,” we believe the evidence clearly supports a finding that Smalley, at the least, organized Hodge’s transfer of cocaine to Thompson. … Smalley's brief repeatedly refers to Hodge as an “unknown female,” though her identity is clearly established in the record along with her arrest for dealing in cocaine at the same time as Smalley.

Alsheik v. Guerrero

956 N.E.2d 1115 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2011

Alsheik failed to establish that Dr. … It was offered to show that the victim was a “nice looking and healthy chap” and to establish funeral expenses. Id.

Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley-Thoraco-Vascular Corp. v. Blatchford

742 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2001

They were also elected and qualified to serve on MRSD’s board of directors. The stock purchase agreement also contained a non-competition clause. … MRSD argues that the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous.