Case law

Gerald Clemons v. State of Indiana

996 N.E.2d 1282 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2013

In response, he heard a muffled female voice very clearly say, “help me, please help me.” Id. … The State further argues that Clemons failed to establish the elements of a defense of necessity as set forth in Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Novy

437 N.E.2d 1338 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1982

The Van Bibber defendants cannot overthrow the judgment on the basis of an argument or issue which they never clearly disclosed to the trial court. Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. … Novy argues that in refusing to pay any indemnity since 1973 Continental has acted in bad faith, thus establishing a basis for an award of punitive damages.

NIPSCO Industrial Group, and, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company

31 N.E.3d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2015

Code § 8-1-2-42(d), a tracker for qualified pollution control projects under construction, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-6.8, a tracker for federally mandated costs, see Ind. … The Commission noted: Clearly, a 7-Year Plan for any public utility must necessarily include some level of flexibility to address changing circumstances.

Jackson v. State

938 N.E.2d 29 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2010

The counts, and the victims they pertained to, were clearly set out in jury instructions 4.31 and 4.481. … "An abuse of discretion occurs 'only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances.' " Id. (quoting Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind.1999)).

Hightower v. State

735 N.E.2d 1209 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2000

To establish fundamental error, however, the error “must be a substantial and blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.” Collins v. State, 567 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind. 1991). … Code § 35-50-1-2 , his conduct qualifies as a single episode of criminal conduct which would preclude his consecutive sentences.

Craig Vickery v. Ardagh Glass, Inc.

85 N.E.3d 852 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2017

We can only conclude, therefore, that to meet the requirements of due process and the Indiana Trial Rules, this proceeding had to have qualified for the notice exception provided for by Indiana Trial Rule … [45] As discussed above, the trial court found sixteen general categories of information that qualify as trade secrets to which Vickery had access. Prelim. Inj. Order p. 50-51.

Patricia Terkosky v. Indiana Department of Education

996 N.E.2d 832 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2013

Terkosky also argues that “teachers are entitled to use reasonable force to maintain classroom order” and that “it would be contradictory to condemn as ‘immoral’ conduct that enjoys qualified immunity,” and she cites to … immunity as a teacher managing a classroom).

Perry v. State

904 N.E.2d 302 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2009

The impact upon others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases but "the defendant's actions must have had an impact on ... … That is clearly incorrect, however, inasmuch as voluntary manslaughter is statutorily defined as a crime of violence such that sentencing limitations on single episodes of criminal conduct do not apply.

Retseck v. Fowler State Bank

782 N.E.2d 1022 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2003

Approximately six months after establishing the trust, settlor adopted his wife's son. … This is so even in light of the use of the general term "children" without any qualifiers in several locations. The reason for this is that Myrtle's intent in providing for the four named grandchildren was clear.

James Satterfield v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2015

Because of these strictly defined qualifiers in the case of murder or treason, each request for bail in those instances must be reviewed upon its individual merits. … A decision is an abuse of discretion when it “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

Shindler v. State

166 Ind. App. 258 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1975

Clearly, we are not here concerned with a situation where Milhous never had possession of the money. … Newspapers, television and radio stations — Press associations — Employees and representatives — Immunity.

Pendergrass v. State

889 N.E.2d 861 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2008

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. … Conneally, which establishes a 99.9999% probability of Pendergrass being the fetus’ biological father.

Bardonner v. State

587 N.E.2d 1353 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

In summary, the prosecutor's remarks were clearly improper. … Barlow would have testified that, 1) as a part of the plea agreement for an unrelated crime, Miller gave a "clean up" statement for other crimes he had committed; 2) Miller was given a limited immunity from prosecution for

Murphy Breeding Laboratory, Inc. v. West Central Conservancy District

828 N.E.2d 923 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2005

Here, in support of its motion, WCCD clearly submitted matters and evidence outside the pleadings. … WCCD asserts that Charles Murphy's testimony establishes that damages to Tract 5 were part of the Condemnation Action.

Tobin v. Ruman

819 N.E.2d 78 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2004

("[alt best, such evidence establishes that Miller wrongfully terminated the contract"). … The agreement clearly and unambiguously requires that upon a request from Tobin, who was an associate, Ruman was required to buy back Tobin's share of stock plus interest. Tobin paid $15,000 for his share of stock.

Casselman v. State

582 N.E.2d 432 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 1991

However, a child must still demonstrate to the court he has the knowledge required by the Russell court before competency is established. Short, 564 N.E.2d at 556 . … S.S.’s statement was taped in a welfare department room with the videotape clearly focused on S.S. and the investigator. The room was well lit and small enough so the activities of both were visible.

Anderson v. State

881 N.E.2d 86 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2008

Officer Edwards then asked Anderson to “please hurry up because the employees wanted him out of this establishment as soon as possible.” Id. at 11. Anderson “continued cursing” as he finished dressing. Id. … Anderson’s conduct clearly interfered with the company’s ability to offer services in a decent and business-like environment.

Gaddie v. Manlief

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.

Jacob Weinberg News Agency, Inc. v. City of Marion

163 Ind. App. 181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1975

This attribute of his merchandise entitles his business to the qualified protection of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States. Bantam Books, Inc. v. … Affirmative relief shall be allowed under such remedy when the right thereto is established.

Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler

505 N.E.2d 459 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1987

In Judge Ratliff's vigorous dissent, he correctly noted the proposed use met the definition of a single-family residence as clearly established by decisions from our sister states. … Chapter 21 clearly establishes that the public policy of this state is to promote the development and maintenance of quality programs and facilities for the care and treatment of the mentally and developmentally handicapped