Case law

Paulson v. Centier Bank

704 N.E.2d 482 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1998

“A fiduciary relationship does not exist between a lender and a borrower unless certain facts exist which establish a relationship of trust and confidence between the two.” Block v. … The trial court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous. E.

Jackson v. State

958 N.E.2d 1161 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2012

The Court further finds that pursuant to Section 5, “The Petitioner shall be heard”, and “the Petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief’. … The appellate court must accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact and may reverse only if the findings are *1165 clearly erroneous.

Smith v. Yang

829 N.E.2d 624 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2005

The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id. … Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides that: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert

James Edward Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2020

Williams maintained that such circumstances were not sufficient to establish abandonment. … In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence from an allegedly illegal search, we do not reweigh the evidence and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations unless clearly

Nicholaus Griesemer and Alexander Griesemer, Minor Children, By Next Friend, Pamela Griesemer v. Brian Griesemer (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2016

Borrow against, cancel, transfer, remove, withdraw, or dispose of any funds for any purpose other than qualified higher education expenses, except as otherwise provided herein … An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, including any reasonable inferences therefrom. Id.

Kroger Co. v. Plan Commission of Plainfield

953 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2011

with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required … In order to be sufficient, the findings must clearly explain why Kroger’s proposed development of a gas station failed to meet the requirements of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

LEE ALAN BRYANT HEALTH CARE v. Hamilton

788 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2003

Bryant Health Care is a qualified provider of residential care to RCAP recipients. … Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, these statutes do not obligate DDARS to pay for residential care for all qualified individuals.

YTC Dream Homes, Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc.

18 N.E.3d 635 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2014

There is no doubt that the five are eminently qualified, knowledgeable and have a high level of competence in the area of franchise law. 7. … Indiana trial courts may establish local rules for their own governance as long as the local rules do not conflict with the rules established by the Indiana Supreme Court or by statute.” Gill v.

Antwain Bateman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this statute was enacted and Bateman’s offense would now qualify as a Level 6 felony. … We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this statute was also enacted, and Bateman’s offense would now qualify as a Level 6 felony.

Braden Corp. v. Citizens National Bank of Evansville

661 N.E.2d 838 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1996

However, since the underlying facts are undisputed and because the defendants do not clearly state what the conflicting inferences are that can be drawn from the undisputed facts, resolution of this case depends only upon … However, the defendants fail to cite any authority, and we find none, establishing that a bank’s failure to debit an account after an initial.dishonor of a check prevents it from taking the check as a holder in due course

Cox v. Matthews

901 N.E.2d 14 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2009

In addition, Tube City maintains that the jury's verdict and allocation of damages is clearly against the weight of the evidence. … Also, Rule 25(C) only applies to "response" or "reply" briefs-this does not qualify.

Collins v. Covenant Mutual Insurance Co.

604 N.E.2d 1190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1992

A special judge appeared and was qualified. … "Clearly the policy of the law is to keep the issue of insurance out of personal injury litigation.

In the Matter of the Estate of Florian T. Latek Nicholas G. Grapsas v. Gerald Ronneau

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.”

Town of Merrillville v. Merrillville Conservancy District Ex Rel. Board of Directors

649 N.E.2d 645 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1995

However, there is an exception to this presumption: the presumption will not apply if it appears that the amendment was made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly. Pike County v. … While chapter 23 provides general authority for municipalities to control sewage works, chapter 25 provides for sanitation departments and districts, with specific and different powers, for certain qualifying cities. 6 .

Ronco v. State

840 N.E.2d 368 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2006

The trial court met with the attorneys and told them about the question and stated to them that the answer to the question was "clearly an or." … A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances before it. Id.

Mathis Franklin, Jr. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and M&M Mortgage, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2018

First, the unredacted provisions of the Service Agreement clearly indicate that M&M was an independent contractor, and Franklin can offer only speculation that any of the redacted portions provide … [16] Finally, Franklin argues that illegal acts allegedly performed by Advanced, namely vandalism and the violation of the automatic stay provisions of bankruptcy law, qualify for the fifth exception

Jeffrey Sparks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2020

If you cannot afford an attorney, the Court may appoint one for you, if you qualify as being truly indigent. … To the contrary, Sparks spoke clearly and intelligently with the trial court.

Marriage of Kraft v. Kraft

868 N.E.2d 1181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2007

We also noted that, at the time Kraft filed his petition to modify child support, he did not qualify for a modification under Ind.Code § 31-16-8-1(2) because less than twelve months had elapsed since the last child support … An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, including any reasonable inferences therefrom. Id.

Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2024

of 15  (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … We will uphold the findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Dylan R. Smart v. State of Indiana

40 N.E.3d 963 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1412-CR-887 | August 4, 2015 Page 4 of 10  the … “The identity and quantity of a controlled substance, and the defendant’s possession of or dealing in narcotics, may all be established through witness testimony and circumstantial evidence.” Id.