Case law

Hill v. Hill

863 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2007

In a separate section of the Final Decree, the trial court ordered an equal division of Husband’s pension and ordered Wife to create a Qualified Domestic Relations Order establishing such an arrangement. 3 Husband now appeals … As Husband is currently receiving payments from his pension plan, he clearly has “a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits” under subsection (b)(1).

Ault v. Brewer

922 N.E.2d 82 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2010

The stroke caused Toby to have difficulty walking, made her weak, and at times she would have difficulty speaking clearly. … (b) With respect to persons having equal priority, the court shall select the person it considers best qualified to serve as guardian.

Gray v. State

841 N.E.2d 1210 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2006

Gray further claims that the severance issue was "clearly stronger" than the issues raised and would likely have led to a reversal. Appellant's Br. at 9. … Defense counsel then stated that Gray was willing to accept "the proposal that he would stipulate that he has a conviction that will qualify as a Serious Violent Felony under the statute." T-Tr. at 12-14.

Murray v. State

798 N.E.2d 895 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2003

Indeed, as to the amount of pseudoephedrine, possession of any amount would qualify as possession of a precursor. … This evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction for possession of precursors.

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. State

112 N.E.3d 1088 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2018

forth the various overarching "Policy Objectives" for the modernization effort, which include, in pertinent part: (i) to provide efficient, accurate and timely eligibility determinations for individuals and families who qualify … Accordingly, as the supreme court ultimately and decidedly established the issue of material breach, it remanded for the calculation of the parties' damages.

Deryan Oneil Cook v. State of Indiana

119 N.E.3d 1092 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2019

he had developed a bias or a belief that [Cook] was the shooter, that he took no steps to Court of Appeals of Indiana |Opinion 18A-CR-348 | February 18, 2019 Page 5 of 11  establish … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court had misinterpreted the law.

In Re the Matter of J.G. and J.T. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services S.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2019

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 04 2019, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing … The Court finds Hannah Lyman[, a DCS family case manager (“FCM”),] is qualified, experienced[,] and credible. Multiple times while Ms.

Billy Gene Luke v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2020

The test is not merely whether the evidentiary facts used to establish one of the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish one of the essential … Clearly, each offense could be recounted without reference to the other.

Marriage of Turner v. Turner

785 N.E.2d 259 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2003

On September 20, 2002, the special judge appeared and qualified. This appeal ensued. … Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Id. at 701 . Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. Id.

Bowman Ex Rel. Bowman v. McNary

853 N.E.2d 984 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

of sporting activities “will avoid judicial review of the kind of risk-laden conduct that is inherent in sports and generally considered to be part of the game, while at the same time imposing liability for acts that are clearly … A mistake or error in judgment alone is insufficient to establish wanton or willful misconduct. Id.

Baker v. Baker

488 N.E.2d 361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1986

The trial court found the parties' pension programs did not qualify as property. Because there was no present right to withdraw the funds, the programs were not included in the calculation of marital assets. … The emancipation of a child is never presumed, but must be established by competent evidence. Brokaw, supra; Hayden v. Hite (1982), Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 133 .

Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Indiana Department of Correction (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2016

As noted above, Strowmatt was advised that his current crimes as well as his past crimes qualified as sex offenses. … The first step is to determine if the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings.

Raymond D. White v. Yvonne R. White (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2015

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A05-1407-DR-344 | July 20, 2015 Page 6 of 16  A decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and … “Findings are clearly erroneous if there are no facts in the record to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if the wrong legal standard is applied to properly found

Jason McMickle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2019

We will reverse only if the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … “[T]he State need not establish a perfect chain of custody whereby any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.” Id.

Thompson v. State

796 N.E.2d 834 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2003

In order for newly-discovered evidence to merit relief, the claimant must establish each of the following prongs: (1) that the evidence was not available at trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not … The Burris statement in that regard, that Thompson did not know "what was going on," clearly concerned the murder of Chambers, i.e. "the cause or circumstances of [Burris's] impending death."

Clark's Sales and Service, Inc v. John D. Smith and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.

4 N.E.3d 772 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2014

The Restrictive Covenant in front of this [C]ourt does not contain any qualifiers on the customers in question, such as “past” or “present,” and only refers to those past customers of Clark’s from 2004-2012 and, therefore … We will not disturb the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Randy Corn v. Junior P. Corn, Bonnie D. Corn and Benjamin Corn

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2015

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … To establish adverse possession of the lane, the Corns were required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements of “(1) control, (2) intent, (3) notice, and (4) duration.” Wilfong v.

In Re: The Paternity of A.S.: M.S. v. M.S. and B.H.

984 N.E.2d 646 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2013

On February 11, 2010, Father filed his “Objection to Petition for Adoption of Minor Child” and a petition to establish paternity. … “[T]he critical inquiry is whether such findings, as adopted by the court, are clearly erroneous.”

Joseph C. Lehman v. State of Indiana

55 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

Such activity certainly qualifies as “engag[ing] in the business of a practicing lawyer” as contemplated by Section 33-43-2-1. … Conclusion [23] We conclude that (1) the trial court did not clearly error in finding that Lehman failed to establish historical facts which support a rational inference of bias necessary to justify a change

Roberts v. Wabash Life Insurance

410 N.E.2d 1377 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1980

The Brown County coroner was concerned with establishing identity as well as cause of death for the body found amidst the debris of Clarence Roberts’ barn. … Kennedy’s skill, knowledge, and experience qualified him to answer the questions. It was for the trier of fact to decide the weight to be given the testimony, based upon Kennedy’s credentials.