Case law

National Fire Proofing Co. v. Roper

38 Ind. App. 600 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1906

(Acts 1899, p. 231, §708’7i Burns 1901), there is a requirement that in manufacturing, etc., establishments, “all vats, pans, saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set-screws and machinery of every description … question is of such a character that it cannot be properly guarded, cannot be said to be a matter of defense to be proved by appellant; for, as previously said, a party who relies upon a statute must bring himself fully and clearly

N.B. v. Sybinski

724 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2000

These waivers included the family cap, time limitations on welfare benefits, work requirements, school attendance requirements, and child immunization guidelines. … These interests are clearly legitimate. As the Supreme Court held in Dandridge v.

I-465, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II of Marion County, Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth and The Myers Y. Cooper Company

36 N.E.3d 1094 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2015

relief was prejudiced by a BZA decision that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … to justify a variance, and its decision was supported by adequate findings, which in turn were supported by the evidence, and therefore not clearly erroneous.

Mennonite Board of Missions, Inc. v. Adams

427 N.E.2d 686 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1981

The challenging party has the burden to present a strong and clear case establishing the unconstitutionality of the statutes. … Upon enactment, the MLA granted mineral interest owners a two year period of grace to effect a qualifying “use” to preserve the interest.

Edmond v. State

951 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2011

We will reverse only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … all occupants of the car and found that Di Re also had counterfeit coupons in his pockets; the Supreme Court reversed his conviction stating, “We are not convinced that a person, by mere presence in a suspected car, loses immunities

Prewitt v. State

761 N.E.2d 862 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2002

In order to qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. … State, 517 N.E.2d 54, 62 (Ind.1987) ("[Wle have clearly held that our attempt statute can have application only to specific intent crimes....").

Stockwell v. Whitehead

47 Ind. App. 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1911

The complaint specifically avers, not as a recital, but as an allegation of substantive fact, “that the above-mentioned subscribers, including defendant, appointed Louis Weinsheimer, at that time the duly qualified and acting … Clearly the contract with appellee, marked exhibit B, is in ac *429 cordanee Avith the agreement marked exhibit A, for the latter agreement certainly authorizes the money subscribed to be used for the purchase of broken rock

P.G. v. M.G. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Hall v. Fivecoat

110 Ind. App. 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1942

Hall died intestate and unmarried, in and a resident of Bartholomew County, Indiana, leaving administratable assets in said county; that Irwin-Union Trust Co. is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator of this … When therefore the word ‘child,’ or ‘children,’ or ‘brother,’ or ‘sister,’ is used in the statute of descent, it must be held to mean legitimate child, children, brother or sister, unless the language of the statute clearly

Daniels v. Hutson

489 N.E.2d 107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1986

(emphasis supplied) While this language clearly authorizes the State Board to order a county welfare director's removal, the statute does not indicate that such authority is exclusively vested with the State Board. … Inclusion on an eligibility list presumes that an individual has been found qualified by an entrance test. IC 4-15-2-3(J).

Slate v. State

798 N.E.2d 510 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2003

Indeed, alternate jurors are presumed to be fair and equally qualified as other jurors. French v. State, 521 N.E.2d 346, 349 (Ind.1988). … Slate relies upon our analysis in Hall to assert that "the controlling law clearly establishes that juror inattentiveness or jury sleepiness is insufficient to prejudice the defendant, thus it logically follows that it is

Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

837 N.E.2d 509 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

[The plaintiff] was clearly a user of the road. Thus, we have no difficulty concluding that-a relationship exists on which a duty could be premised." Id. … The County would likewise be immune for its alleged failure to enforce the speed limit. See Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(8).

Jeffrey Roberts v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2019

A prior conviction for dealing in a controlled substance qualifies as an enhancing circumstance. Ind. Code § 35-48-1-16.5(1). … “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.

Beer Distributor of Indiana, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission

431 N.E.2d 836 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1982

I.C. 7.1-3-2-4 provides: A brewer or other person located outside this state who is desirous of selling beer to an Indiana permittee for importation into, and resale in Indiana, in order to qualify under this title, shall … This section clearly establishes a residency requirement for partnerships and corporations.

Corey Hamersley v. Indiana Department of Correction, and American Broadcasting Company, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2019

determines that the claim: (1) is frivolous; (2) is not a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … This hardly qualifies as evidence that ABC knew or had a high degree of awareness of the report’s falsity.

Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi

814 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2004

Indeed, statutes are presumptively constitutional until clearly proven otherwise by the challenger. See Clint's Wrecker Serv., Inc., 440 N.E.2d at 740 . … [There is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate.

BKC v. State

781 N.E.2d 1157 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2003

Specifically, B.K.C. argues that his determinate wardship was erroneous because "a prerequisite to determining if a juvenile offender qualifies for a [determinate] sentence is a determination by the judge under Indiana Code … The qualifying offenses include ten with sexual elements (i.e., Ind.Code §§ 5-2-12-4(a)(1) (10)) and two, kidnapping and criminal confinement, where the victim is less than eighteen years of age (i.e., Ind.Code §§ 5-2-12-

Maurice McClung, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 30 2020, 11:24 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Discussion [10] The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Fisher v.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.B., Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2015

[5] While the appeal in Best II was pending, Russell filed a petition to establish guardianship over M.B.’s person in Boone Superior Court. … attend the guardianship hearing and that she could testify if called as a witness. 3 The trial court’s dismissal of Mariea’s petition for replacement was “without prejudice if [Russell] (a) is found not qualified

T.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2015

The juvenile court overruled T.J.’s objection and admitted the autopsy report; however, the juvenile court qualified its ruling by stating that Dr. … “Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and only reverse if a ruling is clearly against the