Case law

State of Indiana v. Sameer Girish Thakar

71 N.E.3d 27 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it does not clearly define its prohibitions. Id. … However, the provisions cited by the State more generally concern establishments that serve alcohol, or the banning of live sex acts in such establishments, and do not reflect a specific policy with regards

Brennan v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Evansville

695 N.E.2d 983 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1998

The party asserting the invalidity of the agency action bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. Id.; Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14. … A reviewing court may vacate a board or commission decision only if the evidence, when viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the conclusions reached by it are clearly erroneous. Cun diff v.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.H., Jr. and Ar.L. (Minor Children) An.L. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2019

He further told FCM Middleton that, had Ar.L “received her two month immunization shots,” those shots “could’ve possibly prevented” the meningitis. Ex. Vol. II at 46. … Clearly, there [is] some mental illness that is not being addressed with each parent.

Department of Treasury v. Reinking, Receiver

109 Ind. App. 63 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1941

Reinking is the duly appointed qualified and acting Receiver of George 0. … Having established such a claim against the trust for gross income taxes, it falls within the last provisions of subsection 8 (h) and should be allowed the preference therein given.

J.S. v. State

843 N.E.2d 1013 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2006

We do not believe that an officer's assumption about an individual's actions, without more, establishes her motivations beyond a reasonable doubt. … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic *1018 and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Phillip D Hinkle v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2024

We review these determinations for an abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial … A document does not need to be open and available to the public in order to qualify for admission under the public records exception. Id. (citing 2 Kenneth S.

Anthony Roberson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 30 2017 … To be “fundamental,” error must be “a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and apparent.” James v.

Dws v. Lds

654 N.E.2d 1170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1995

conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony or affidavit of the custodian or other qualified … To the extent that parts of the reports establish that an incident was reported by L.D.S. and her therapist, and contain the preparers' direct observations of B.M.S, those parts are admissible.

Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Commission of Grant County Indiana

60 N.E.3d 268 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2016

[22] In sum, the APC sufficiently established that the home qualifies as an unsafe building under I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a)(6). Moreover, Enslen has failed to establish a constitutional violation. … The trial court’s judgment in favor of the APC, therefore, is not clearly erroneous. [23] Judgment affirmed. [24] Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.

Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry

854 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

The rule clearly states that the only prerequisite for this Court to accept a discretionary interlocutory appeal is certification of the order by the trial court. … Further, "[the courts have not given trade secrets automatic and complete immunity against disclosure, but have in each case weighed their claim to privacy against the need for disclosure." United States v.

Rose v. State

488 N.E.2d 1141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1986

In the present case, the prosecutor wrote a note to Rose's attorney following the second continuance which clearly was a plea bargain offer. … He claims an inadequate chain of custody was established due to a piece of scotch tape being found on the cellophane wrapper which contained the pills.

Planned Parenthood of Northwest Indiana, Inc. v. Vines

543 N.E.2d 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1989

established by the laws of science, is of no probative value." 59 N.E.2d at 581 . … Here, the substance of tendered instruction No. 4 was adequately covered by the court's final instructions numbered 4 and 7, which clearly admonished the jury that in order to recover the plaintiffs were required to establish

Preston v. State

588 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1992

If he did not qualify for work-release, however, he was to be committed to the Indiana Department of Correction. … In this case, Preston clearly had the opportunity to pay the fees and costs through the last day of his probationary period.

State v. Palmer

496 N.E.2d 1337 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1986

The State need only establish the lower court committed prima facie error to win reversal. Johnson County Rural Electric v. Burnell (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 989 ; Indiana State Board of Health v. … Clearly, neither Indiana statute nor our caselaw require a charging information to be accompanied by probable cause affidavits unless the information is to serve as the basis for an arrest warrant.

Matter of Guardianship of Brown

436 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1982

Because a qualified trustee had not been named by a set-tlor who was competent to do so, the court was empowered under IC 30-4-3-29(c) to appoint a new trustee. … Without dwelling upon her bona fides the Court of Appeals affirmed since she had failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion (by showing that the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the

Aaron v. Review Bd. of Indiana EmPloyment Security Div.

416 N.E.2d 125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1981

The majority opinion with regard to this issue clearly overrules the two cases last cited and usurps the prerogative of the Indiana General Assembly. … Since I would hold that claimants at exempt plants were not disqualified under the labor dispute section of the Act, they need not show they have become qualified.

Milledge v. the Oaks

764 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2002

Yankeetown Dock Corp., 491 N.E.2d 969, 975 (Ind.1986) (citing Youngstown for the proposition that "a causal connection between the injury and the employment is clearly necessary to qualify for workman's [sic] compensation … Consequently, the facts of this case lack the requisite causal nexus to establish that Milledge's injury "arose out of" her employment. II.

In Re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star, Jeffrey M. Miller & Cynthia S. Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc. Jennifer Burk

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2012

And here, The Star has clearly chosen to keep the identity of “DownWithTheColts” confidential. The Star did not waive its privilege. … Publication has clearly been established in this case.

Christopher Halterman v. Adams County Board of Commissioners, Adams County Sheriff, Charles Padgett, Adams County Sheriff's Dept. and Adams County Jail

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2013

We will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Halterman argues Dr. … If the defendant establishes the lack of that causation, summary judgment is appropriate.

Estate of Latek v. Ronneau

960 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2012

The Appellants further argue that Bozik’s assertion (under penalties of perjury) in the petition for probate of Latek’s Will is legally insufficient to establish that the signature on the will was Latek’s signature. … Appellants assert that if Bozik can be found to qualify under the statute, at best, he may qualify under subsection (a)(6) which provides for “any other qualified person.”