Case law

Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana

981 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

A statute is presumed constitutional until the party challenging its constitutionality clearly overcomes the presumption by a contrary showing. Id. … This evidence established his status as an expert. See Bennett v.

James Gillespie v. Anita Gillespie (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2017

Was the trial court’s finding that Husband had retained the parties’ joint tax refund clearly erroneous? 2. … Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)

Gold v. Ishak

720 N.E.2d 1175 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1999

Lalka opined that although the records did not show what went wrong, something clearly did. Dr. Lalka also stated that the fire was extremely unusual. … The evidence presented at trial clearly shows that Gold has established the elements necessary for the inference of res ipsa loquitur. See Vogler, 624 N.E.2d at *1185 61.

Cooley v. Kelley

52 Ind. App. 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1911

Harper, Jr., was named as executor of the mil, and after qualifying and making final settlement was duly discharged. … This holding is clearly right, for the reason that no interest whatever passed by the will to the trustees.

Lugar v. New

418 N.E.2d 248 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1981

A construction of a statute by the Legislature, if clearly indicated by subsequent enactments, whether valid or not, will be given consideration by the courts. State v. Davis (1952), 230 Ind. 479 , 104 N.E.2d 382, 383 . … Such payments amount to an additional 5% of a qualifying ISP employee’s basic pension for each year of service rendered above 20, up to a maximum of 30.

Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. v. Propane Transport, Inc.

416 N.E.2d 440 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1981

The shippers also testified to their needs for a safe and dependable transportation service that is properly equipped and qualified to handle the transportation of LPG in specialized pressure tank trailers. … .” 3 The Court, declining to set either minimum standards or minimum burdens of proof in public convenience and necessity cases, stated: “In the ‘distinct need’ contract carrier situations, the supporting shippers are a clearly

School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co.

149 Ind. App. 416 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1971

two days later, on July 22, 1970, the Gary Urban League wrote the president of the School Board suggesting that the School Board give all due consideration *423 to bids on school construction work which are submitted by qualified … The fact of constructive fraud was sufficiently established, and constitutes valid foundation for the judgment below. Citizens Loan, etc., Co. v. Herron (1917), 186 Ind. 421 , 115 N. E. 941 .

Chicago & Erie Railroad v. Kreig

22 Ind. App. 393 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 1899

However well the doctrine of the Paramore case may be established, yet the case at bar is not controlled by this doctrine. … The evidence showed intricate and combined means for preventing the emission of fire from the smoke-stacks of locomotives, and the subject-matters of these questions were clearly of such character that a qualified expert

Washington v. Allison

593 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1992

Washington failed to establish excusable neglect. FACTS Wilton Allison filed suit against Dr. Washington in Marion Municipal Court 1 on November 1, 1990. … Washington practices medicine by himself, as a sole practitioner, and as a sole proprietor, qualifies him as an individual within the meaning of T.R. 4.1 and not as an organization within the meaning of T.R. 4.6.

INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASS'N v. Martin

731 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2000

Thus, Martin sought a hardship exception to the transfer rule so that she would be allowed to play varsity sports. [3] However, IHSAA determined that under the IHSAA Eligibility Rules, Martin qualified for only limited eligibility … Clearly, there was evidence before the trial court that Martin suffered emotional and physical ailments.

Bandido's, Inc. v. Journal-Gazette Co.

575 N.E.2d 324 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1991

To determine at this stage that the issues in dispute are (or are not) sufficient to prove the case clearly and convincingly would be to invade the province of the trier of fact. … Bandidos underscores the following facts and inferences flowing therefrom to establish a disputed issue suitable for trial.

In Re The Termination of The Parent-Child Relationship of: Ca.B. and C.B. (Minor Children), and T.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2018

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment. Id.

Mueller v. State

837 N.E.2d 198 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2005

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … Prosecutors have clearly recognized and very broad discretion in the performance of their duties and, more specifically, in making decisions as to which persons arrested for crimes they will actually charge and prosecute

Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Hiatt

65 Ind. App. 233 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1916

Appellant likewise extended to such persons an invitation, or gave them a direction, to make known to the operators of such an approaching car their presence and purpose by a signal established and understood by virtue of … If evidence is clearly immaterial, its erroneous admission is, as a general rule, held to be harmless. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathias (1875), 50 Ind. *247 65 ; Sparks v. Heritage (1873), 45 Ind. 66 ; Robinson v.

Kyle James Fravel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 29 2019, 7:39 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Flota was granted use immunity to testify against Fravel, but he refused to testify for fear of retaliation.

Whitley v. State

439 N.E.2d 715 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1982

The general rule in Indiana is that evidence of separate, independent and distinct crimes is inadmissible to establish an accused’s guilt of the crime charged. … However, the repeated commission of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.

Carrie A. Krampen v. James J. Krampen

997 N.E.2d 73 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2013

Carrie’s 2011 tax filing clearly shows that she had negative income for tax purposes. … Typically, changes in parents’ income, emancipation, increase in educational expenses, and changes in custody of a child qualify as substantial and continuing circumstances that justify modifying a support order.

Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana

994 N.E.2d 1166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2013

Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until that presumption is clearly overcome by a contrary showing. Wallace, 905 N.E.2d at 378. … In applying the test, the court first considers whether the legislature meant to establish civil proceedings. Harris, 949 N.E.2d at 810.

Carswell v. State

721 N.E.2d 1255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1999

Clearly, by enacting this statute, the legislature has recognized the value of restricting child molester’s access to children, *1260 thereby reducing the opportunity for convicted molesters to continue offending. … Thus, Griffin stands for the proposition that reasonableness for probationary searches may be established by statute rather than by warrant.

Bryant v. State

802 N.E.2d 486 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2004

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances. Id. … Only when the trial court fails to find a significant mitigator that is clearly supported by the record is there a reasonable belief that it was overlooked. Kien v.