Case law

William A. Wiley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2012

Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before Jun 08 2012, 8:31 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … its sentencing decision on other factors not gleaned from his immunized testimony.

In the Matter of J.M-C., I.M., E.M., B.M., M.F., Ale.F., Ala.F., Alin.F., and Alia.F., Children in Need of Services, T.M., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2019

A determination that a child is a CHINS will only be reversed if the determination was clearly erroneous. Id. … DNA testing established that Boyfriend was father of E.M.’s child. Ex. Vol. 3 at 7-9, 21.

Cross v. BON L. MANUFACTURING CO.

893 N.E.2d 780 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2008

The Agreement states that Bon L may "direct [GRUS employees] in the performance of their daily duties and utilize their skills to the extent they are qualified as determined by [Bon L]. Id. … In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. GKN, 744 N.E.2d at 401 .

Moore v. Liggins

685 N.E.2d 57 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1997

Therefore, Moore failed to satisfy his burden, and the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. … This is quite a gravy train the prosecutor’s office has set up at the expense of the equal privileges and protections of the Defendants who are supposed to enjoy the same Constitutional protections, rights, privileges and immunities

Winters v. Cruse

874 N.E.2d 1079 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2007

Her immunization records. Anything to do with her has been under [A.K.W.] … An abuse of discretion will be found only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the court has misinterpreted the law. Id .

Carey v. State

180 Ind. App. 516 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1979

Both the motion to correct errors and the appellant’s brief on appeal clearly indicate the facts constituting the alleged error. No one was misled. … The presentation of this statement to the jury clearly would require disclosure of the informant’s identity under the GloverMcCulIey rule.

Alan E. Dewitt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2016

As properly determined by the trial court, Deputy Zeider’s training and experience qualified him as an expert witness. … Clearly each offense is established by different elements.

Lane v. Frankfort Community Schools Building Trades Corp.

747 N.E.2d 1172 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2001

local governments could choose among several methods for providing firefighting services, in Ayres our supreme court reasoned that because the function or service involved was uniquely and exelusively governmental, it was "clearly … "; and noting that immunity under the Tort Claims Act was not at issue because IWC did not claim it). .

S. R. v. M. J.

71 N.E.3d 436 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

We will not set aside the findings or the judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. The trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them. … The adoption court, however, made an initial determination that Mother had sufficient income and did not qualify for appointed counsel.

Brent Myers v. Jarod Coats

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

The undisputed facts here establish that the DOC determines whether an incarcerated individual belongs on the Registry and also handles complaints about mistaken sex offender registrations. … J. concur 5 Having found this issue dispositive, we need not address the parties’ arguments concerning whether Coats’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations or whether Myers is entitled to qualified immunity.

Baker v. Lee

901 N.E.2d 1107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2009

They contended that Lee lacked standing to pursue visitation with the Children after the adoption because (1) he was no longer a "grandfather," and (2) he had not previously established visitation rights under the Grandparent … We find that Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-9 clearly permits grandparent visitation to survive adoption of a child by another biological grandparent.

McNicholas v. Johnson

612 N.E.2d 569 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1993

McNicholas is disabled, cannot work outside the home, and is infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS [Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome]. He has been diagnosed as having AIDS. Mr. … Special findings will be reversed on appeal only if they are clearly erroneous.

Hollingsworth v. State

907 N.E.2d 1026 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2009

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. at 587 (citations omitted). … Hollingsworth also contends that the State failed to establish which subsections of the Arkansas statute he had violated and that as a result the trial court could not have determined that the Arkansas and Indiana statutes

Steven and Kathy Chambers, Stephen and Elizabeth Driscoll, and Perry and Tonya Evans v. Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, and Rhett and Alan Light (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2020

The court concluded that “[t]his language clearly indicates that hog raising operation[s], in barns, are a permitted use. … decision only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Zechariah Brian James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

121 N.E.3d 139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if it misapplies the law. Id. [8] In Kubsch v. … Assuming for the sake of argument that the issue was waived, James has not met his burden of establishing fundamental error.

Pennington v. State

821 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2005

Pennington further claims that the trial court cited other aggravators that he asserts "do not qualify as egregious or heinous facts" which would justify an enhanced sentence. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating cireumstance requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

Midtown Community Mental Health Center v. Estate of Gahl Ex Rel. Gahl

540 N.E.2d 1259 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1989

It is undisputed that each of the defendants was a qualified health care provider under the Malpractice Act at the time relevant to this action. … Clearly, Thomas is not binding on this court, but because the relevant provisions of Louisiana's Malpractice Act are virtually identical to ours, we consider the facts upon which Thomas was denied.

Coila Bradford v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2023

App. 2010 (recognizing that the DOC determines what programs qualify for awarding credit). Neither the Agreement nor the relevant statutes promise that 487 days—or even one day—will be awarded. … App. 2011) (declining to address the defendant’s state privileges and immunities clause challenge to the expungement statute because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal).

Elkhart & Western Railroad v. Waldorf

17 Ind. App. 29 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1897

. * * * “In this case it was clearly the intention of the parties, as expressed in the deed, that the grantor was to have, not only the naked possession, but the use and enjoyment of the land, and that certainly included … court, said': “It is safe to assume at the outset, that where the facts can be fully placed before the jury, opinion evidence, even from experts, is incompetent if the facts are of such a nature that jurors are as well qualified

Abels v. Monroe County Education Ass'n

489 N.E.2d 533 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1986

The argument continues, in essence, that MCEA alone was qualified to act as the exclusive representative. They assert that neither ISTA nor NEA were entitled to act in that capacity. … Rather, they first contend that MCEA failed to adequately establish the extent to which ISTA and NEA assisted MCEA in collective bargaining.