Case law

Brandon Francis Schaefer v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2025

Schaefer’s educational records before interviewing him regarding special education support in 2018, that Schaefer had reported “meltdowns, nervous breakdowns, those kinds of things,” and that he qualified … [31] It is well settled that “a defendant in Indiana can avoid criminal responsibility by successfully raising and establishing the ‘insanity defense.’” Galloway v.

Miles v. De Wolf

8 Ind. App. 153 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1893

Boyle, one of the trustees named in the will, did not qualify, but William R. Miles, the husband of Elizabeth S. Miles, qualified to look after the interest of his wife. “After the death of William J. … *169 “Besides, the action of appellees show clearly, we think, that at the time these services were rendered they were in fact rendered on their own behalf and in discharge of their duties as trustees, and not otherwise.

MJ Acquisitions, Inc. v. Tec Investments, LLC

863 N.E.2d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2007

Nieto argued that there was no spring installment due for 1996 as a result of the reassessment and, therefore, that the trial court’s finding and conclusion were clearly erroneous. … Thus, the trial court’s finding that the 1996 spring installment was unpaid and its conclusion that the home was, therefore, properly included on the 1997 delinquency list were not clearly erroneous.

Roger Hartman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2015

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1411-CR-401 | June 19, 2015 Page 7 of 10 [13] To qualify as a fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make … The fundamental error exception to the waiver rule is an extremely narrow one, available only when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic elementary principles of due process, and the

Maez v. State

530 N.E.2d 1203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1988

The instructions were: “FINAL INSTRUCTION # 12 The doctrine of ‘reasonable doubt’ applies to the law, as well as to the facts established or not established by the evidence, and you should give the Defendant the benefit of … The State counters by arguing that, here, the deleted portions were completely blacked out and not at all readable, whereas in Cornett , thin lines were drawn through paragraphs and sentences so that the language was clearly

Jones v. State

847 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006

This discrepancy in testimony does not establish prejudice for Strickland purposes. … There, the defendant, though given use immunity, refused to testify against his fellow inmate in a drug case. Id.

Howard Publications, Inc. v. Lake Michigan Charters, Ltd.

649 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1995

Webber, Sr. of the Porter Superior Court qualified as special judge on June 16, 1994. The parties began discovery. Pursuant to court order, non-party Lake Michigan Charters, Ltd. … It does not matter whether the envelope was sealed when the reporter found it, nor does it matter whether the envelope was clearly marked as confidential. .

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.

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

Darrin L. Burns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2018

Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 15 2018, 9:02 am court except for the purpose of establishing … He did qualify that somewhat in discussion later about that but I think the State is entitled to look at that and say this is a person who seems to be someone less than decisive and

Jody Michael Brooks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2016

clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process” and (b) “present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” … Brooks again claimed that Woodson’s statements qualified as excited utterances.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company NIPSCO Industrial Group and United States Steel Corporation

76 N.E.3d 144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2017

He explained that a specific low-income rate [for a payment assistance program] should not be established, as it sends a negative price signal. … [11] An order from the IURC is presumed valid unless the contrary is clearly apparent. Citizens Action Coalition of Ind., Inc. v. S. Ind. Gas and Elec.

Cortez Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 2016

Jones’ request that we reconsider well-established precedent is thus inappropriate. See id. … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id.

Johnson v. Capps

415 N.E.2d 108 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1981

The instant action however was not brought for the purpose of establishing or modifying a custody decree, but rather, to terminate all parental rights of the mother. … Petitioner equally clearly refers to a petitioner for adoption and Capps did not qualify as such. The majority recognizes as much in conceding that Capps does not literally come under the statute.

Kenneth Kesler, M.D. v. Indiana University Health Care Associates, INC.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2024

Additionally, Trial Rule 65(D) establishes that the trial court’s order granting a TRO shall include or be accompanied by findings under Trial Rule 52. … Here, IUHP has failed to established a valid reason why it would be unfair for Dr. Kesler to practice at Community North Hospital.

Tenta v. Guraly

140 Ind. App. 160 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1966

This establishment of when the alleged tortious act occurred is essential because of the burden of establishing knowledge and intent as of that time. … Again this testimony, so clearly hearsay, is important. The inherent danger of hearsay evidence is illustrated by this self-serving answer.

United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Michalski

814 N.E.2d 1060 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2004

In further support of its position, the court compared that act with language found in the Labor and Storage Lien Act and the Labor and Storage Lien (Small Amount) Act and noted that those two acts contained qualifying language … This, Riverside did not establish that it had acquired a valid lien against Velocity.

Enyart v. Blacketor

168 Ind. App. 214 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1976

. *230 The majority’s rationale that a traffic sign must warn of a specific hazard to qualify as a warning to motorists is not supported by reason or authority. … The court further noted: “Travelers upon public highways are not expected to first ascertain and determine whether such signs are established in strict compliance with law before respecting them.” 415 P.2d at 88 , quoting

Darlage v. Drummond

576 N.E.2d 1303 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1991

His estate was opened on April 22, 1983, with Jane Speer, Joseph's sister, qualified as the executrix under Joseph's will. The will named Cheryl and Joseph's two children as the sole devisees. … neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the witnesses' credibility; rather, we view only the evidence that supports the judgment, and will uphold the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value establishing

L.E. Services, Inc. v. State Lottery Commission

646 N.E.2d 334 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1995

The undisputed facts, as stipulated by the parties, sufficiently establish the Commission as an aggrieved party within the meaning of the CRRA. Next, LE. … We find that the doctrine of state-action immunity applies here and thus exempts Indiana from the proscriptions of the Sherman Act. C.