Case law

Pink A. Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2019

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 the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions … This is sufficient evidence to establish that Robinson participated in the store robbery. See Curtis v. State, 42 N.E.3d 529 (Ind. Ct.

Grange Mutual Casualty Co., Mark Madejek, and Alice Blaisdell v. Estate of Stephen P. Stetz, by Jeffrey and Dana Stetz, Personal Representatives

92 N.E.3d 676 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2018

We look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policy unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the policy. … Ambiguous words will be construed in favor of coverage “with greater force to language that purports to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 71A05-1708-CT-1720 | February 28, 2018 Page 11 of 17  limit or to qualify

Ruggieri v. State

804 N.E.2d 859 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2004

To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind.1999). … Furthermore, the transcript establishes that, because the State objected to the use of the word "inappropriate," the trial court intervened.

Barbara L. Mack (individually) and Barbara L. Mack, Grandmother/Custodian and Next Friend of Jaylan N. Brown, a minor child v. Christine A. Amiott, Harold S. Burchfield (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2015

Although insurers may limit coverage, “such limitations must be clearly expressed to be enforceable.” State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. … If she was a covered Insured under Coroy’s Safe Auto policy on the date of the accident, Mack qualified for uninsured motorists coverage under the policy terms once Safe Auto denied coverage under

Marcus Conner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2020

[11] When evaluating a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply the well-established, two-part Strickland test. … The building housed an immunization clinic, a lead poison prevention program for small children, and other services. The clinic served both children and adults.

S.C.S. v. B.R.A.

645 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1995

S.B.A. was born out of wedlock to Mother and Father on May 4, 1983. 1 Father filed a petition to establish the paternity of S.B.A. on April 8, 1992. … Specifically, Petitioner's isolated purchase of ice capade ticket, and school books and gifts to child of clothing do not qualify as significant support of child. Record, p. 477. .

Campbell v. State

551 N.E.2d 1164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1990

Trial judges are uniquely qualified to assess such dynamics. … These crimes clearly were egregious under the facts and their effects upon the community relevant.

Centman v. Cobb

581 N.E.2d 1286 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1991

Garner qualified as a "physician" under the Medical Malpractice Act because each held a temporary medical permit and not an unlimited license to practice medicine. … The Ohio court appears to have retreated from its decision in Rush to the position we establish today in this decision. Dr. Cobb and Dr.

Taele v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

936 N.E.2d 306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2010

obligated to provide UM coverage to the Taeles because they did not sustain any "bodily injury" in the accident, as defined by the policy, and their alleged emotional distress from witnessing their child's death did not qualify … Our supreme court first noted that the occupants clearly stated permissible NIED claims against the underinsured driver, per Shuamber. Jakupko, 881 N.E.2d at 656 .

Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance v. Alvin C. Putman

98 N.E.3d 98 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

Putman filed a reply arguing that his misdemeanor battery conviction did not constitute a qualifying offense to revoke his license because it was not a misdemeanor in which an element of the offense involves violence under … While we do not attempt to establish the boundaries of the occurrences in which an element of a misdemeanor offense involves violence, we cannot conclude that the Commissioner was unreasonable in determining that Putman's

Koo v. State

640 N.E.2d 95 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1994

The trial court clearly erred in admitting the testimony of M.K. and S.P. … To the contrary, she clearly testified she never made the allegation although clinic personnel may have interpreted it as such.

Boyd v. State

72 Ind. Dec. 523 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1979

Furthermore, Boyd’s allegation of constitutional violations has not established a ground for reversal. First of all, Boyd failed to present any kind of constitutional analysis to support his allegation. … Such abuse of discretion will only be found “if the court makes an erroneous conclusion that is clearly against logic and the natural inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Merry v.

Koch Development Corporation and Daniel L. Koch v. Lori A. Koch, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William A. Koch, Jr.

996 N.E.2d 358 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2013

The party appealing the trial court’s judgment must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. Anderson, 955 N.E.2d at 800. … Here, the evidence clearly shows that KDC and Dan had no intention of curing their failure.

Studabaker v. Faylor

66 Ind. App. 175 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1917

behalf of himself and other legatees, to appellant’s appointment, in which, he alleged that he was a legatee and devisee under the will of Catherine Faylor, deceased; that an administrator had been duly appointed and had qualified … Proceedings to probate a will are actions to determine the property rights of living persons by establishing the evidence thereof, and they precede ' the first steps in the settlement of the estate under the probate jurisdiction

State v. Raymond E. Heinold Family Trust

484 N.E.2d 595 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1985

The reason for such rule was clearly set forth in Washburn v. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago R. … statement of the facts which give it value, for a jury could hardly make an intelligent valuation from a description of the land and an enumeration of its advantages without a *599 definite figure as a guide, and a duly qualified

Koppin v. Strode

761 N.E.2d 455 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2002

Employees also claimed that Township "violated Ind.Code § 22-2-5-2 by failing to make timely payments of their wages" and 'violated the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section … City of Columbus, 505 N.E.2d 841, 844 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), trans. denied (" 'Clearly, more than municipal interests are involved in the establishment of a state militia, and the state statutes would control over municipal provisions

City of Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana v. County Residents Against Annexation, Inc., an Indiana not for profit corporation

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2025

Under Indiana Code § 36-4-3-11.3(b)(1), an annexation ordinance is void if 65% or more of the qualified landowners in that territory signed a valid remonstration petition. … But if at least 51% but less than 65% of the qualified landowners signed a valid remonstration petition, the annexation is not void but would be subject to judicial review to determine its validity.

Donnelley & Sons Co. v. North Texas Steel Co., Inc.

752 N.E.2d 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2001

In other words, a party cannot immunize from admissibility documents otherwise discoverable merely by offering them during compromise negotiations. Id. … Tide qualifies as an advisory witness under Trial Rule 26(B)(4)(b).

Joshua A. Willey-Rumback v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2012

The petitioner must also establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to properly object. Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243, 259 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … To be fundamental error, the misconduct must have made a fair trial impossible or been a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process that presents an undeniable and substantial potential

Blinn v. State

677 N.E.2d 51 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1997

Thus, "proof that the defendant's condition rendered operation of the vehicle unsafe is sufficient to establish endangerment." … X-XX-X-XXX to establish "prima facie evidence of intoxication".