Case law

Terry E. Garber, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2020

Garber has failed to establish harmful error, much less fundamental error, in this regard. B. Dr. … This does not quite qualify as impermissible vouching. See, e.g., Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, 71 N.E.3d 887, 893 (Ind. Ct.

Antione Nelson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … However, footage from Officer Teare’s dash camera clearly revealed that Nelson was the driver. At the close of the evidence, the trial court found Nelson guilty on all Counts.

Apter v. Ross

781 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 2003

The Father did not establish that his actions constituted an acceptable exception to the Federal wire-tapping law. … We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Gary did not meet his burden.

J.M. v. M.A.

928 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2010

s grandmother to establish a guardianship over him. Sometime thereafter, M.A. … We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before it. Id. at 953 .

Aguilar v. State

416 N.E.2d 887 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1981

Furthermore, it is well *890 established that control of the examination of a witness lies with the trial court, not with the witness. Smith v. State (1st Dist. 1974) 160 Ind.App. 622, 632 , 312 N.E.2d 896, 902 . … The record clearly shows Aguilar refused to answer several questions propounded by the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the trial court.

Willie Moore v. State of Indiana

49 N.E.3d 1095 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2016

We will only reverse when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court and the error affects a party’s substantial rights. Id. … At trial, Officer Helmer established that he knew two Willie Moores had lived at the apartment complex, one of whom was on the trespass list.

In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.

930 N.E.2d 1169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2010

Indiana Code § 35-37-6-9, which establishes the victim-advocate privilege, has never been interpreted. … About a year later, the legislature responded by enacting a statute establishing a victim-sexual assault counselor privilege.

Janet Daugherty v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

[9] The Board clearly explained why it did not give weight to Dr. Holsey’s conclusions. … Permanent Total Disability [14] To establish “permanent total disability,” a claimant must establish that they “cannot obtain or perform ‘reasonable’ types of employment” for the remainder of their life.

Jones v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

508 N.E.2d 1322 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1987

Again, among the qualifying criteria is the requirement that there be a reasonable expectation of employment following the approved training. … Clearly, it is not a reliable, statistical basis under the facts of this case for concluding that there is no demand whatsoever in any of the occupations in which Jones expressed interest, particularly in light of the evidence

Pepple v. Parkview Memorial Hospital, Inc.

511 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1987

Even ascribing to the Kennedy court the unlikely [1] intention to limit the standard to public hospitals, one would think such limitation would have been clearly set forth. … profession is jeopardized: "To recognize hospital disciplinary proceedings as privileged, regardless of the purpose for which disclosure is sought, would in effect grant such committees, their members and participants absolute immunity

In the Matter of Estate of Newman

174 Ind. App. 537 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1977

Golda Hadfield, decedent’s sister, was appointed and qualified as a personal representative, and bond was approved. … (A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Woodbury Glass Co.

80 Ind. App. 298 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1918

Hence the establishment and construction of the drain was only incidently involved. … The instruction comes clearly within such rule and the court did not err in giving the same.

Quillen v. Quillen

659 N.E.2d 566 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1995

The valuation, like the division, will be reversed for an abuse of discretion only if the valuation is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Cleary v. … Evidence that tends to establish a child's independence does not necessarily establish emancipation. Taylor, 558 N.E.2d at 883 .

Cornett v. Johnson

571 N.E.2d 572 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1991

Clearly, Judge Pictor was not testifying as a character witness. Thus, the question is whether he was lending the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others. … I further know of no law, statute, or rule which grants him immunity from testifying on this subject when under oath.

Leona Rae Hawk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

In particular, the rule to show cause is required to (1) clearly and distinctly set forth the facts that are alleged to constitute the contempt; (2) specify the time and place … “To qualify as fundamental error, ‘an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.’” Absher v. State, 866 N.E.2d 350, 355 (Ind. Ct.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.R.W., M.A.W., Ja.W., Se.W., Sa.W., and C.W. (Minor Children), and J.R. (Mother) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2016

It is clearly unsafe for the children to be in the care of the parents. … “We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment.” Id.

Daniel R. Ross v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

If you want an attorney to represent you but cannot afford one, the court will appoint an attorney for you if you qualify. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. [13] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Cox v.

In Re: The Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.A., N.A., W.A., W.A., (Minor Children), and, R.F.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2018

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … The record supports the trial court’s finding, and it is not clearly erroneous.

Laura Faulkenburg v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … However, in determining whether the answer might have that effect, the court is bound by the statement of the witness “unless it clearly appears from the examination and the circumstances before the court

Dickey v. Citizens State Bk. of Fairmount

98 Ind. App. 58 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1932

The principal questions presented by this appeal can more clearly be shown by a brief statement of the facts as set forth in the pleadings. On November 20th, 1928, Benjamin F. … This court is not at liberty to qualify or control such language in a will by conjecture or doubt arising from extraneous facts which might exist.