Case law

Cody J. Chambless v. State of Indiana

119 N.E.3d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2019

[17] As Chambless acknowledges, a trial court may admit hearsay that qualifies under the excited utterance exception. See Ind. Evidence Rule 803(2). … The testimony at trial clearly showed the contrary.

Harkrider v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co.

513 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1986

IND.CODE 29-1-18-45 clearly permits reasonable compensation for attorney and guardian fees which are discretionary matters for the trial court. Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co., (1983) Ind. … In a not very strict application of A.R. 8.3(A)(7), which requires cogent argument and citation to applicable authorities, we find that only three items appear to qualify as issues. These are: A.

Lucino Jorge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2017

), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 04 2017, 7:42 am court except for the purpose of establishing … But the court did not specify what fees qualified as “standard” nor did it specify the amount for each probation fee.

Lisa Svenstrup v. Thomas Svenstrup

981 N.E.2d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2012

A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206, 1210 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied. … court to order either or both parents to pay sums toward their child’s college education constitutes a reasonable manner in which to enforce the expectation that most families would encourage their qualified

Bonner Ex Rel. Bonner v. Daniels

885 N.E.2d 673 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2008

Clearly, as shown, the Education Clause is subject to judicial enforcement. … All parts of this article are clearly interrelated.

FMS Nephrology Partners North Central Indiana Dialysis Centers, LLC v. Meritain Health, Inc.

120 N.E.3d 1012 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2019

[17] The Indiana Supreme Court has previously adopted a broad interpretation of what qualifies as an ERISA-related question. … The claims clearly have connection with and refer to the ERISA plan. Id. at 166–67.

Sherry Vernell Webb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2018

We review its rulings for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … The Court: I don’t know that they qualified her in terms of the scientific test regarding residue.

Hollinsworth v. State

920 N.E.2d 679 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2010

To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Id. (citing Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-445 (Ind.1999)). … Reversal is appropriate only where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Jennings, 723 N.E.2d at 972 .

Barrett v. State

164 Ind. App. 460 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1975

The chain of custody of the exhibits was established as follows: Defendant, at the time of the sale, handed No. 2 to the informant, who immediately handed it to Brackman. … It clearly provided a sufficient basis for the trial judge’s determination that Forbes was qualified to render an expert opinion. We therefore find no error under issue (7).

Pagan v. State

809 N.E.2d 915 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2004

We are satisfied, though, that a sole proprietorship may qualify as a "person" that can be the victim of a crime. … Here, the only property Pagan took was clearly identifiable with the Hardinsburg Video business.

Cain v. Back

889 N.E.2d 1253 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2008

Although such evidence may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case, it has probative value with respect to the tampering party’s consciousness of the weakness of his or her position on the merits and may be considered … Evan-gelista and Graber could have qualified as expert witnesses under Rule 702(b), but neither party sought to qualify either of them as such. Thus, it is inaccurate to describe Drs.

Monjar v. State

876 N.E.2d 792 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2007

Am abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. … Steward maintained that the male jailer was not qualified to take the urine sample pursuant to Indiana Code section 9 — 30—6—6(j), 2 and he therefore was not offered a proper chemical test.

Spangler v. Bechtel

931 N.E.2d 387 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2010

Rather, the situation can be more clearly described as a negligently inflicted injury which caused the miscarriage or stillbirth, and it is "by virtue of [mother's] direct involvement" in the miscarriage or stillbirth *394 … Parents therefore argue that "[to the extent that summary judgment was granted on the premise that a separate tort must be established under the [CWDS], that premise is inconsistent with established precedent, and is in error

In the Matter of D.P. & C.H., Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, T.P. Mother v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2015

15  Mother admitted she has a heroin addiction and also used marijuana and took painkillers and that she stated that she was unable to afford in-patient treatment as she has no insurance and could not qualify … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and conclusions. Id.

Decker v. Zengler

883 N.E.2d 839 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2008

The assertion of conclusions of law or opinion by one not shown to be qualified to testify to such will not suffice. Id. … We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997), reh’g denied.

Gabriel v. Gabriel

947 N.E.2d 1001 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2011

We will set aside the trial court’s findings of fact and judgment only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 639 . … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and conclusions thereon.

Latoyia Billingsley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2012

She asserts, however, that the State produced insufficient evidence at trial to establish judgment under one of the predicate offenses. … Trotter’s certified BMV record, which showed that Trotter’s license had been suspended, but did not show that Trotter had received a previous driving while suspended conviction,” and that here, by contrast, the BMV Record “clearly

Albert L. Hauck and Mark Wood v. City of Indianapolis

17 N.E.3d 1007 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2014

In its memorandum in support of its motion, the City argued that “[t]he City-County Council clearly intended to give the Chief of Police discretion to make promotions as he sees fit, and its language that the Chief ‘shall … The City asserts that the “promotions [of Hauck and Wood] would have required the Chief of Police to skip over at least six other more qualified candidates.” Id. at 18-19.

Becker v. State

695 N.E.2d 968 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 18, 1998

Moreover, we are unable to conclude, as did the Greer court, *975 that these required factors have been clearly established under the particular circumstances of the case. … The 1995 statute contains a list of felonies qualifying as "crimes of violence” which includes Rape and Criminal Deviate Conduct. Ind.Code § 35-50-1-2(a) (1995).

Lake County v. State Ex Rel. Manich

631 N.E.2d 529 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1994

In response, Lake County Council did not establish a two-tiered salary structure nor did it make a finding that Manich was a registered surveyor. … Indiana Code §$ 86-2-12-15 clearly provides that a registered county surveyor is to be paid an amount equal to one and one-half times that of a non-registered surveyor.