Case law

Wright Manufacturing Corp. v. Scott

172 Ind. App. 154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1977

Further, the trial court’s Finding of Fact No. 11 is clearly erroneous. … We do not agree that there was no evidence tending to establish that Scott was responsible for obtaining Wright’s 1970-1971 model year accounts.

Duane Turner v. State of Indiana

974 N.E.2d 575 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2012

Meunier qualified that his observations were based on general “everyday observations and everyday behaviors.” … A petitioner must establish his claims to post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence. P-C.R. 1, § 5.

Eberhart v. Indiana Waste Systems, Inc.

452 N.E.2d 455 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1983

Joseph County since 1957, the Council, Commissioners and ABZA all have clearly differentiated powers and duties. As the executive power in the county, the Commissioners approve or veto ordinances passed by the Council. … No sanitary landfill, or solid or liquid waste disposal facility, shall be approved as a conditional use which does not also qualify as an urban drain as herein defined. 5.

Woodruff v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

947 N.E.2d 934 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2011

The Social Security Act mandates the establishment of minimum health and safety standards that must be met by providers and suppliers participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs. U.S. … An amendment to a statute raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law, unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intent more clearly.

Serenity Springs, Inc. and Laura Ostergren v. The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau, by and through its Board of Managers

13 N.E.3d 487 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2014

We will reverse only when the judgment is clearly erroneous, i.e., when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions entered on the findings. Id. … For findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, the record must lack probative evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id.

Samtwan Hobby v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

Hobby admitted that he qualified for the habitual offender enhancement. … “A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Rottger, Rec.

99 Ind. App. 485 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1934

Can this be so when the language in that paragraph clearly and unequivocally provides that as to such premiums actually collected, the agent shall hold the same, less commissions thereon, for the appellant, as a fiduciary … Court is, therefore, affirmed. 1 The trust company, for which the appellee is receiver, was closed by the order of the bank commissioner of this state on the 23d day of October, 1930, and the receiver was appointed and qualified

J.D. v. State

841 N.E.2d 204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2006

With respect to the first step, a person's conviction for making unreasonable noise based solely upon his loud speaking during a police investigation qualifies as the restriction of an expressive activity. … Clearly, the magnitude of impairment to the Article 1, Section 9 right to expression cannot be characterized as "slight" in this case, as the State's restriction of J.D.'

Fultz v. State

849 N.E.2d 616 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 2006

On the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes Farrell was dead when the fire started. Moreover, while the autopsy did not reveal evidence of strangulation, Dr. … Steve testified for the State, under a grant of use immunity, and provided a similar account of the events following Farrell's death.

Luxurious Swimming Pools, Inc. v. Tepe

177 Ind. App. 384 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1978

This role may clearly be denominated as being supervisory. McDaniel’s work represents an integration of planning, supervisory, and construction skills. He was also the sole supervisory authority on *388 this project. … However, this statement is qualified by a reference in Russ to the holding *389 of Rubin v. Coles (City Ct. N.Y. 1931), 142 Misc. 139 , 253 N.Y.S. 808 . Russ, supra, 133 N.Y.S.2d at 646.

Baugh v. State

926 N.E.2d 497 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 2010

Here, the evidence established that Baugh committed sexual misconduct with Z-specifically, sexual intercourse-on two occasions. … To qualify as fundamental, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.

J.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Employer (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2017

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 09 2017, 8:25 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Moreover, the evidence does not qualify for judicial notice under Indiana Evidence Rule 201.

In the Adoption of S.M.: S.D. v. K.W. and S.W. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2020

“A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment.” Id. … This evidence establishes that Mother failed to communicate with child for at least one year.

Galloway v. State

480 N.E.2d 223 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1985

of seven (7) judges who shall hold their office for six (6) years and until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. … Miller, (1983) Ind.App., 451 N.E.2d 1099 , we cannot say that the evidence clearly points to Galloway's release for there appears a serious question of his continuing on medication to remain without symptoms of his mental

Travis S. Chandler v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2026

A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances,” Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 858 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Smith v. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-2553 | March 31, 2026 Page 5 of 10  well-established Indiana Supreme Court precedent. See Dawson, 943 N.E.2d at 1281.

Lehman v. State

926 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2010

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … We agree with the State that these statements, made at the beginning and end of both audiotapes, qualify as testimonial.

Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. Dalbey

119 Ind. App. 405 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1949

The evidence clearly establishes, that the damage complained of was not caused by an explosion of fumes from gasoline or some other liquid inflammable substance as contended by appellant’s counsel. … It is clearly distinguishable in its facts.

John W. Schoettmer and Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright and South Central Community Action Program, Inc.

971 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2012

He amended his answer to Szarmach’s complaint and moved for summary judgment on the ground he was immune from Szarmach’s tort claim as a government agent because Szarmach did not comply with the notice provision of the … The Schoettmers were unaware of South Central’s governmental status, Cincinnati Insurance made representations upon which the Schoettmers justifiably relied, the purpose of the notice requirement of the ITCA was clearly

Mogg v. State

918 N.E.2d 750 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

The State called Jeffrey Hawthorne, whom the trial 'court qualified as an expert witness based on his training as an electrical engineer, his experience in research and development of a hand-held alcohol breathalyzer, his … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 836, 839 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).

Max Nicholson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Wise, 26 N.E.2d at 143. … The State responds that circumstantial evidence established that they were trustworthy business records and, thus, properly admitted.