Case law

Barringer v. Guilford School Township

100 Ind. App. 445 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 1935

the demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint, which in substance is as follows: That the appellant is a duly licensed and practicing professional engineer and architect of the State of Indiana, and the appellee is a duly established … These cases are clearly not in point.

Winderlich v. MacE

616 N.E.2d 1057 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1993

In doing so, we look at the trial court's findings of fact to determine whether the court's decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances" before it. Thompson, 550 N.E.2d at 18835. … We consider that three residences (meaning two moves) within four years hardly qualifies as unreasonable.

In Re the Marriage of Stariha

509 N.E.2d 1117 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1987

While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is 'private, on the one hand, or 'state action … Clearly, John's conviction and sentence, though served, will have collateral consequences and this case is, therefore, not moot.

William M. Cox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2015

, both enhanced convictions cannot stand because the facts establishing serious bodily injury for criminal confinement would also establish serious bodily injury for battery. … under the law qualifies as serious bodily injury, so if you believe Terri that she says ‘And then I blacked out, and then I woke up in front of the bed.’

M.L.R. v. Harrison County Welfare Dept.

567 N.E.2d 872 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1991

We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. In the Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d at 284 . … In part, she contests the evidence establishing that her boyfriend was the person named in the judgment of conviction.

Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Howarth

73 Ind. App. 454 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1919

It claims that this statement is too broad, and should have been qualified by the rule of law that a railroad company, having given notice of its intention to use a crossing, has priority, even over a traveler who has exercised … These facts establish one of the alleged acts of negligence, and show that it was the proximate cause of appellee’s injuries.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 20 2017, 8:53 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Manley qualifies as a violent criminal under the statute because he was convicted of child molesting. I.C. § 35-38-1-17(d)(10) (“violent criminal” means a person convicted of child molesting).

Parnell Dion Lanier v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2025

“We review de novo a ruling on the constitutionality of a search or seizure, but we give deference to a trial court’s determination of the facts, which will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.” … “Probable cause to search a vehicle is established if, under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ there is a ‘fair probability’ Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-769 | November 3, 2025

Hogston v. Schroyer

449 N.E.2d 291 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1983

Prairie Village, Inc., (1980) Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 97, 100 , neither will we ignore it where it is clearly demonstrated. … Appellee maintains that counsel was merely attempting to establish a relationship between a motorcyclist's speed and the severity of his injuries.

McEntire v. Indiana National Bank

471 N.E.2d 1216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1984

The terms of this particular guaranty very clearly contemplate the equipment lease agreement at issue herein and must have been so intended. … This state of affairs qualifies a guarantor for the status of "debtor" within the terms of I.C. 26-1-9-105(1)(d).

Lazzell v. INDIANA FAMILY & SOCIAL SERVICES ADMIN.

775 N.E.2d 1113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

Therefore, to establish his income levels, Mr. Lazzell provided the OFC with a profit and loss statement covering the first five months of 2000. … Using the net income from the current year, the applicant would qualify for benefits, but, using the net income from the prior year, the applicant would not qualify.

Leisure v. Leisure

589 N.E.2d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1992

That this is to be accomplished by a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" to be prepared in a form hopefully acceptable to the U.S. Government. … If we conclude that the findings support the judgment and are not clearly erroneous, we will affirm the judgment.

Carla Miller v. Indiana Gas Company, Inc

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2026

[25] Although Miller contends that Friend’s and Novak’s affidavits contain secondhand information, the affidavits clearly establish that both Friend and Novak were present at the scene of the Incident … The IURC’s investigation into the Incident was clearly relevant to determining the cause of the Incident.

Kent A. Easley v. State of Indiana, Shelby County Prosecutor's Office, R. Kent Apsley, J. Brad Landwerlen, Shelby Co. Probation Dept.,, Deanna Holder, Shelby Co. Superior Ct One Clerk

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED establishing the defense of res judicata, … We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Progressive Ins. Co., 777 N.E.2d at 94. Id.

The Village Pines at the Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Pines of Greenwood, LLC, and Arbor Homes, LLC

123 N.E.3d 145 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2019

[7] At some point, the Reserve Fund was established as required by Section 5.2 of the Declaration. … We further note that Section 12.3 goes on to qualify the above-mentioned right and states that Pines “shall not be entitled to make any amendment which has a materially adverse effect on the rights of any

G.C. v. T.A.

24 N.E.3d 1020 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2014

T.A.’s (“Father”) paternity to C.A. was established in the Tippecanoe Circuit Court. Father and G.C. … She is qualified to seek licensure here. Mother testified licen-sure could be completed in 3 months.

Town of Brownsburg, Indiana, Town Council of Brownsburg, Indiana, and Jeanette M. Brickler v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation

98 N.E.3d 114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2018

Metes and bounds are usu. described in deeds and surveys to establish the boundary lines of land.” … Code § 36-4-3-13(c) is clearly erroneous.

Nobles v. Cartwright

659 N.E.2d 1064 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1995

Clearly, the Lottery Director has the authority to enter into contracts upon the Lottery Commission's behalf. See Indiana Admin.Code tit. 65, r. 1-1-9 (1992). … Appellants also argue that discretionary immunity renders them immune from an invasion of privacy claim and, alternatively, that Cartwright has waived her right to pursue such a claim because of her public statements regarding

Thomas L. Arflack v. Town of Chandler, Indiana Chandler Town Council and Town of Chandler Advisory Plan Commission

27 N.E.3d 297 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2015

Clearly this language does not contemplate the immediate entry of judgment upon the sustaining of such a motion. … If he in fact does not -wish to plead over—as clearly appears to be the case here—then no harm has occurred from the error.

Wiggins v. Davis

737 N.E.2d 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2000

We are reluctant to reverse a trial court’s determination concerning child custody unless the determination is clearly erroneous and contrary to the logic and effect of the evidence. Id. … In light of our discussion above along with evidence establishing ongoing molestation and neglect, we cannot say that the trial court erred in awarding custody of S.D. to Davis.