Case law

Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2019

We affirm the agency’s judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. [7] Here, IDEM partially disposed of Esserman’s claims through summary judgment. … Indiana Code section 4-15-2.2-42(f) further provides: An unclassified employee must establish that the [SEAC] has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the employee’s wrongful discharge claim by establishing

Worman Enterprises, Inc. v. Boone County Solid Waste Management District

779 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2002

"Order" means an agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other legal interests of one (1) or more specific persons. … In addition, a solid waste management district would «qualify 'as 'a political subdivision 'under Indiana Code § 36-1-2-13, which provides, * 'Political subdivision' means municipal corporation or special taxing district.

Indiana Area Foundation of the United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Snyder

953 N.E.2d 1174 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2011

Acknowledging this doctrine’s limitations, however, the Brazauskas II court observed, “ ‘The First Amendment does not immunize every legal claim against a religious institution and its members. … Without more, Reverend Snyder has not established that they were acting in their individual capacities.

Cochran v. Wimmer

118 Ind. App. 684 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1948

We are of the opinion, however, that under the evidence the question was clearly one of fact for the jury to determine. … instruction at the trial it is here urged that said instruction is mandatory in form, and charges the jury that under the statute quoted the appellant must yield the right of way to the other vehicle without in any manner qualifying

Connelly v. Calender

96 Ind. App. 432 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1933

Calender was duly appointed receiver of said The Gas City State Bank, by this court, on September 15, 1930, and duly qualified as such receiver and is now the receiver of said bank. … Connelly, for the amount of said certificate of deposit. (.2) “It clearly appears upon the face of said complaint that the said certificate of deposit was issued to the said Harry L.

Board of Aviation Commissioners v. Schafer

174 Ind. App. 59 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1977

FACTS The Board of Aviation Commissioners of Clark County is an executive department of Clark County, Indiana, and is authorized by law to acquire, establish, construct, maintain, improve, and operate airports. … consequently entitled to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the office, until ousted by some one having a better right to it.’ ” (Original emphasis) In the case at bar the evidence presented by the Board clearly

Coffey v. Coffey

649 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1995

[Done-tal request[s] of the Court that the Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relation Order for a division of such retirement "in kind" for future benefits for the benefit of [Done-tal. … Clearly, the court was not required to split the pension 50-50 between William and Doneta.

Gregory S. Powers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2017

“We therefore reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. (citing Fettig, 884 N.E.2d at 343). … While some of the pictures of the pliers are slightly blurry, others are not and clearly depict the size and condition of the pliers.

In Re The Paternity of K.R.K. K.O. v. R.H.K. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2015

Father’s paternity was established in Allen Superior Court on April 8, 2010. Mother also has a daughter who is approximately two years older than Child. … It was at this hearing that Mother indicated for the first time that one reason for the relocation was to enable Oxendine to qualify for medical benefits that were ostensibly unavailable to him in Indiana.

Lampitok v. State

817 N.E.2d 630 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2004

that, therefore, the State had failed to establish two prior unrelated felonies. … If so, the 1995 conviction does not qualify as a prior unrelated felony, and the directed verdiet was appropriate.

Theresa Biedron v. Anonymous Physician 1

106 N.E.3d 1079 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2018

Furthermore the patient must also qualify for an ICD. Mrs. … A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

W. M. v. State

437 N.E.2d 1028 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1982

The procedures established by Judge Vincent clearly are an inappropriate basis for a 602 petition. … This earlier section clearly was meant to cover adults since a juvenile court would not otherwise have jurisdiction over them.

Brandon Ray Kern v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2019

Kern does not demonstrate whether he would qualify as a suitable candidate for admittance into [the] MAST program. Mr. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

James Satterfield v. State of Indiana

30 N.E.3d 1271 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2015

Because of these strictly defined qualifiers in the case of murder or treason, each request for bail in those instances must be reviewed upon its individual merits. … A decision is an abuse of discretion when it “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

Pastrick v. Geneva Township of Jennings County

474 N.E.2d 1018 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1985

Pastrick's recollection is that the testimony established that she had an unexercised option to purchase. … A mandamus action does not lie to establish a right or to define and impose a duty. Perry Township, supra.

Turner v. State

870 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2007

intent more clearly. … Yet, we still find it a challenge to discern the legislature’s entire purpose in increasing the amount owed in order to qualify as a Class C felony.

In the Matter of the Paternity of M.A.M. State of Indiana by the IV-D Prosecutor of Miami County v. T.M.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2019

[8] Prosecuting attorneys are clearly allowed to file paternity actions. … To qualify Indiana for those funds, our General Assembly established a Child Support Bureau within the Department of Child Services and charged it with “the administration of Title IV-D of the federal Social

Lukis v. Ray

888 N.E.2d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2008

The riparian ... zones clearly establish that Ray possesses the smallest amount of lakeshore ... and in accordance with an apportionment methodology also possesses the smallest riparian zone. … abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory

Norton v. State

772 N.E.2d 1028 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2002

This principle was established by the United States Supreme Court in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). … It has also been established in Indiana that a defendant may waive his claim of a Bruton violation through error. In Latta v.

Burke v. BD. OF DIRECTORS OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY

709 N.E.2d 1036 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1999

The submission of a harassment complaint by one employee against another is clearly within the scope of employment where, as here, the complaint is filed pursuant to the employer’s policy or request and concerns an incident … In addition, Burke has failed to designate evidence establishing that he was terminated for exercising his right to free speech.