Case law

Thomas v. Briggs

98 Ind. App. 352 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1934

“Plaintiff further says that the defendant, Edgar Thomas, failed and refused to tender said will for probate and was appointed and qualified as administrator of said estate on the 24th day of April, 1930, and is Still acting … The evidence did clearly, unequivocally and decisively establish and prove the material allegations of the complaint.

Mayes v. State

162 Ind. App. 186 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1974

The testimony in question falls clearly within the proscription of the Glover case and was therefore improperly admitted. … IV CHAIN OF CUSTODY ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED TO QUALIFY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AS TO IDENTITY OF SUBSTANCE ALTHOUGH SUBSTANCE ITSELF NOT ADMISSIBLE It is Mayes’ contention that there was a substantial break in the chain of custody

City of South Bend v. Krovitch

149 Ind. App. 438 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1971

Each fire company ordered to maintain an active patrol shall be charged with the responsibility of having not less than one of its members patrolling by car in the response district of said fire company at all times established … This Court is of the opinion that the city cannot require a fireman to qualify as a special policeman as a condition of employment, or continuing employment with the city.

Terra Nova Dairy, LLC v. Wabash County Board of Zoning Appeals

890 N.E.2d 98 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

agency decision, we may provide relief only if the decision is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; [ (2) ] contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … We note that during the certiorari proceedings, *107 Terra Nova requested and obtained a copy of the form once used by Wabash County; clearly, Terra Nova could have made such a request prior to applying for an ILP and either

In re the Paternity of Ember Mazzotti-Dill: Sherry Mazzotti v. Heath Dill (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2016

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 … We conclude that the trial court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

Sharon Louie v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2019

Louie contends that the record establishes that the trial court did not intend to impose any probation fees, while the State argues the opposite. … “An abuse of discretion has occurred when the sentencing decision is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions

In Re Paternity of HRM

864 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2007

We will conclude that a trial court abused its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, or against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Also, evidence is not cumulative when the other evidence tending to prove the same facts is clearly not persuasive and therefore requires further support.

N.L.P. v. T.A.R. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2017

Based on this conversation, the court found that “the children seem to be immune to their parents’ conflict.” Id. … Further, we will set aside the court’s finding or judgment only if they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Kevin Shawn Carter v. State of Indiana

105 N.E.3d 1121 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2018

Ordinarily, we review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, evaluating whether the court’s ruling was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. … [11] There are a few “specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” to the warrant requirement. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

Major v. State

873 N.E.2d 1120 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2007

As Major argues, it is this right to an impartial jury which is implicated in this case, immunizing it from harmless error analysis. … We are not inclined to deem the empan-elment of an anonymous jury as one of the rare structural constitutional errors immune to harmless error analysis.

Indiana Department of State Revenue, Gross Income Tax Division v. Beemer Enterprises, Inc.

179 Ind. App. 447 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1979

This definition clearly excludes from gross income any gross receipts from sources outside Indiana. However, the language does not clearly exclude commissions which were generated from business sources outside Indiana. … The exemption in # 6 of the original act and all revisions thereof as heretofore noted, clearly indicate it has never so intended.

MR v. State

605 N.E.2d 204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1992

the commentary to IC 31-6-7-3 in support of that proposition, which reads, in part, "[a] parent who had referred the child to court as an incorrigible, and who therefore is the chief witness against the child, would not qualify … Clearly, she had no interest adverse to M.R. at the time. She was a loving parent, obviously concerned about her son and his future.

Davis v. All American Siding & Windows, Inc.

897 N.E.2d 936 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2008

“This general rule may be altered by a written agreement by the parties or by the conduct of the parties which clearly demonstrates a different compensation scheme.” Id. … We conclude that the Agreement does not establish a clear and unambiguous intent to terminate Davis’s commission payments upon his termination.

Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission v. Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc.

27 N.E.3d 802 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2015

partnership or limited partnership that owns the business establishment; (3) a member of a limited liability company that owns the business establishment … Indiana Code chapter 7.1-1-3 provides definitions that shall be applied throughout Title 7.1 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

Terre Haute First National Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co.

634 N.E.2d 1336 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1994

"It is the nature of the claim, not its merit, which establishes the insurer's duty to defend." Id. … If the pleadings disclose that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, no defense is required. Id.

Dugan v. State

860 N.E.2d 1288 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2007

An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Hines, 794 N.E.2d at 471 (citing Hyppolite v. … In order to prove unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF, the State must prove that Dugan knowingly or intentionally possessed a firearm while, at the same time, having a qualifying prior felony conviction as enumerated

Behavioral Health & Human Services Licensing Board v. Williams

5 N.E.3d 452 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2014

See Tr. p. 59 (“As I read the record and from my finding[s] it’s obvious I mean I, I thought there was evidence from which boundaries violations could clearly be established. … The record herein established that Patient A suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, and Schizophrenia.

Rolland v. State

851 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2006

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Rolland, Rolland argues that there was no evidence establishing that he was the person who committed these acts.

Degussa Corp., Pigment Division v. Mullens

695 N.E.2d 172 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1998

Watkins and her worker’s compensation claim clearly establishes that she suspected her work environment was a possible cause of her illness. … This medical condition, which included serious chest pains, coughing, and difficulty breathing, qualifies as an injury for purposes of determining the statute of limitations period. 3 .

Perdue v. Murphy

938 N.E.2d 766 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2010

The Court found "the interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing … Perdue's claim of discrimination under the acts required her to establish: she is disabled; she is otherwise qualified for the benefits sought; she was excluded from participation or benefits because of her disability, and