Case law

State v. Thomas

827 N.E.2d 577 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 18, 2005

An abuse of discretion occurs if "the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." - Pierce v. State, 705 N.E.2d 173, 175 (Ind.1998). … Thus, the possession offense qualifies as a "prior unrelated" conviction.

Green v. State

676 N.E.2d 755 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1996

As Shadwick, supra, makes clear, neutrality and detachment clearly entail severance from law enforcement. … Such clearly is not the law. Id. at 881 (emphasis added).

Fuehrer v. Storm

769 N.E.2d 622 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2002

A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts … Landowners assert that the Storms do not qualify for remonstrance under this section.

Rosenbalm v. Winski

165 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1975

Moreover, the instruction’s mandate for the necessity of proximate causation and the evidence clearly establishing the issue to be the visibility of the red light would support a conclusion that neither the trial nor the … Here there was no evidence to establish excuse or justification.

Joseph Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Commission

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2023

[26] But the Chapos’ reliance on the ISRPA fares no better even if we assume their original personal shooting range qualified as a “shooting range” under the ISRPA. … “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision either clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or misinterprets the law.” River Ridge Dev. Auth. V.

In the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.K., N.K., and J.K., Minor Children, and D.K., Mother v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

Prior to [the Children’s] removal from Mother, [the Children] had been provided with virtually no medical care, had poor hygiene, significant dental issues and no immunizations. 3 … “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996).

United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Hanley

172 Ind. App. 329 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1977

The Court decided the household exclusion left Allen Hanley uninsured, and Claimant therefore qualified for uninsured motorist protection. … The exclusion from the policy coverage of damage caused by the operation of insured automobiles was, clearly, not pro *337 hibited by the statute, and the terms of the contract between the insurer and its policyholder should

Brant v. Custom Design Constructors Corp.

677 N.E.2d 92 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1997

In deciding whether to grant an application for primary plat approval under this scheme, the commission is required to “determine if the plat or subdivision qualifies for primary approval under the standards prescribed by … This section clearly states that the commission “may” authorize a variance as opposed to “must” or “shall.” Thus, the decision to authorize the variance was within the discretion of the commission.

Henning v. Hill

80 Ind. App. 363 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1923

reward for the finding or procuring, by one person, of a purchaser for the real estate of another shall be valid, unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the owner of such real estate or his legally appointed and duly qualified … encroach upon the domain of that branch of the government if they characterize a transaction as invalid because it is contrary to public policy, unless the trans *371 action contravenes some positive statute or some well established

Tod E. Elias v. Janet R. Elias (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2015

However, Husband does not appeal the trial court’s determination regarding the personal property. 3 Because Husband’s PERF cannot be divided via Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Wife had to receive … Findings are clearly erroneous if there are no facts in the record to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if the wrong legal standard is applied to properly

Kenneth Seales v. State of Indiana

4 N.E.3d 821 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2014

We first determine whether the Legislature meant the Act to 3 establish civil proceedings. Id. … He never had a hearing to determine his status as a sexually violent predator, nor had he committed a qualifying offense.

Brant Construction Co. v. Lumen Construction Inc.

515 N.E.2d 868 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1987

It being already established that the "job log" was both admissible hearsay and the type of record usually prepared in order to assess the work done on a construction project, there was no error resulting from Hough's and … To establish a violation under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution or laws of the United States

Local 1963 of the United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Madison County

999 N.E.2d 949 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2013

Indiana Code § 5-)-1-1 UAW further claims that the language of Section 1 establishes that deputies are employees of the County. … This court found that "lilt is elementary that there can be no deputy without there first being a principal; the principal being the duly elected, qualified and acting official of the county." Id. at 290.

Ricardo S. Trevino v. Comprehensive Care, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2016

And in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. … Factual findings are clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support them, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the factual findings or conclusions of law.

Scott v. State

924 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2010

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireamstances before the court. Id. … EVIDENCE OF NOLO CONTENDERE PLEA Seott contends that the trial court erred in admitting his nolo contendere plea to a Florida murder as proof that he was convicted of an offense that qualifies him as a serious violent felon

Fifth Third Bank v. Stanek

806 N.E.2d 861 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2004

Specifically, the lease agreement provided: THE SOLE DUTY OF FIFTH THIRD IS TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE TO PREVENT THE OPENING OF THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ("BOX") BY ANYONE OTHER THAN *863 THE LESSEE OR A DULY QUALIFIED LEGAL … Stanek, on the other hand, asserts that the facts contained in her complaint establish that Fifth Third was negligent when it allowed unauthorized access to her safe deposit box.

Tri-Quality Enterprises, Inc. v. Total Sys. Tech., Inc.

893 N.E.2d 781 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2008

Under the rule, qualifying words or terms should be applied to the words immediately preceding them and should not extend to include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly … TST knew or should have known that it was breaching the non-compete clause when it entered into the Agreement; thus, it should not be immune from Rhino Linings's claim for breach of contract.

Utley v. Healy

663 N.E.2d 229 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1996

Thus, the Utley's maintain that since the city was immune from liability, their motion for judgment on the evidence should have been granted. We disagree. … Although not clearly developed in their appellate brief, the *238 Utleys seem to argue that admission of the contents of the work order violated the motion in limine because "[tJhe jury could assume that the next step after

LHO Indianapolis One Lessee, LLC v. Esther Bowman, Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Individuals

40 N.E.3d 1264 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law and fact. … To prevail on a claim, the class will have to establish both generic and individual causation. Id.

Thomas Zachary v. Amanda Suzanne Nesbitt (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2020

“When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we apply a less stringent standard of review with respect to the showing necessary to establish reversible error.” … As such, the alleged shortfall does not qualify as “newly discovered evidence,” and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Husband’s motion to correct error.