Case law

Davis v. State

835 N.E.2d 1102 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2005

When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance, the defendant must establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. … While Davis presents these factors as mitigators, he has not established their significance.

Platt v. State

664 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1996

The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that: [Flacts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken, are unalterably and finally established … Further, it is the challenger's burden to show that the alleged constitutional defects are clearly apparent. Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 56-57 (Ind.1991) (citation omitted).

Matthew E. Reust v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2019

The Court concluded that inclusion of landscaping work performed at the property where a new home is being constructed “would require this Court to impermissibly rewrite a clearly worded statute to obtain a … SECTION [IV]–COMPLIANCE & PERSONNEL 4.1 Qualified Personnel.

Dominique Laray Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2020

It’s about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish that [Davis] constructively possessed the handgun, as required to establish the offense of carrying a handgun without a license, where … Based on his income, the trial court did not appoint a public defender but found that Davis qualified for the Modest Means program.

Lutheran Hospital of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare

72 Ind. Dec. 715 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1979

This evidence was sufficient to establish that Hospitals were not conducted for profit. Wayne Twp. v. … By contrast, the evidence here clearly showed the “non-profit” status of appellant Hospitals.

K.S. v. R.S.

657 N.E.2d 157 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1995

This is not the stuff of which fundamental rights qualifying as liberty interests are made. Id. at 491 U.S. at 125 , 109 S.Ct. at 2344 . … Clearly, the Agreed Entry which established paternity of R.S. over D.S. was a private contract between the parties.

Shonika Vashae Drones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2020

The record clearly indicates that Drones and her boyfriend transported M.H. … See Indiana Evidence Rule 104(a) (“The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.

Murdock Construction Management, Inc. v. Eastern Star Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.

766 N.E.2d 759 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Once established, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to respond with specifically designated facts that establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Id. … Yarnelle establishing that supervisory services are not lienable. In Ward v.

Ks v. Rs

657 N.E.2d 157 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1996

This is not the stuff of which fundamental rights qualifying as liberty interests are made. Id. at 491 U.S. at 125 , 109 S.Ct. at 2344 . … Clearly, the Agreed Entry which established paternity of R.S. over D.S. was a private contract between the parties.

Dontaye Singletary v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

She denied any involvement in the shooting but later agreed to give a statement to police in exchange for immunity. … 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 has misinterpreted the law.”

Jim Barna Log Systems Midwest, Inc. v. General Casualty Insurance Co. of Wisconsin

791 N.E.2d 816 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2003

The defendants intentionally, fraudulently, and recklessly misrepresented that Myers was a qualified, competent, bonded and in *821 sured log home builder with years of experience as a log home builder and contractor. 29. … If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id.

Lovko v. Lovko

179 Ind. App. 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1978

Lovko as an expert witness, the trial court possesses wide discretion in determining if a witness is qualified to testify as an expert, Snow v. … This case is clearly distinguishable from Husband’s cited case of Indiana Union Traction Company v.

Michael L. Bowling v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

The appellate court must accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact and may reverse only if the findings are clearly erroneous. Id. … decided two years after Bowling’s guilty plea, holding that where the intermediate step is so near the end of the manufacturing process that the final product is present in the chemical compound, that substance qualifies

Whitfield v. Wren

14 N.E.3d 792 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2014

summary judgment as a matter of law unless the plaintiff can establish, by expert testimony, a genuine issue of material fact for trial. … The court also granted by separate order a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Plaintiffs' expert, on grounds that he was not properly qualified to offer expert medical testimony. 951 N.E.2d at 859-860 . .

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

981 N.E.2d 1221 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2013

It is well established that both the private interests and the State interests are substantial in termination cases. See id.; In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 900-01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). … Section 31-32-3-11 could have applied to Father, but the wording clearly indicates that appointment of a GAL under that section is discretionary, and for the reasons outlined above, we do not believe the court was required

Brown-Ketcham Iron Works v. George B. Swift Co.

53 Ind. App. 630 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1913

Doyle, supra, and authorities there cited. *646 12. *645 Subject to the limitation just indicated “it is the *646 established rule that a mode of service prescribed by the state laws for obtaining jurisdiction over foreign … These authorities, together with others hereinafter cited, convince us that the legislature was acting clearly within its right and power in passing the act in question, and that such act, even though its wording be such

Paternity: James A. Barnhart v. Sara E. Davis Whitcomb

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2017

required that its students be vaccinated but, pursuant to Indiana Code section 20-34-3-2, the school allowed an unvaccinated student to attend if a parent executed a form claiming a religious objection to immunization … A judgment is also clearly erroneous when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. In re D.J. v.

White v. Allstate Insurance Co.

591 N.E.2d 586 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1992

Bank et al. (1978), 157 Ind.App. 236 , 299 N.E.2d 854 , have also been accepted as qualifying under this requirement. The second requirement is mutuality of estoppel. … Subsequently, the ad-ministratrices of the parents' estates attempted to have a constructive trust established for Turner's intestate share.

Irwin R. Evens & Son, Inc. v. Board of the Indianapolis Airport Authority

584 N.E.2d 576 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1992

Thus, we hold that the trial court’s construction of the contract in Electric’s favor with respect to this issue was not clearly erroneous. Time raises another issue. … However, we also observe that Time does not establish that the contract had been fully performed before Airport and Electric filed their brief or preliminary petitions.

Rauch v. Circle Theatre

176 Ind. App. 130 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1978

Under well-established principles of property law, a lessee under a lease or real estate is liable to the lessor for rent by virtue of privity of estate. … While the provisions of IC 23-1-7-1 outline the necessary procedures for effecting a voluntary dissolution, nowhere in the statute is it provided that a valid dissolution will provide immunity from civil actions alleging