Case law

Martinez v. Park

959 N.E.2d 259 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2011

In this case after the deadlines were established and with a trial date pending, the Court, upon motion of [Dr. … In response, Martinez argued that the panel decision “clearly states Park breached the appropriate standard of care in that he was not qualified to do the surgery.

Rissler v. Lynch

744 N.E.2d 1030 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2001

Though Rissler claims that she was unaware of the January 28, 1999 Entry until April of 1999, we do not agree that this qualifies as a clerical error. … Furthermore, as with TR. 60(B)(1), the burden is on the movant to establish the existence of grounds for relief. Id.

Hand v. State

863 N.E.2d 386 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2007

To be sure, injuries less substantial than those in cases like Hollins and Judy can qualify as “serious bodily injury.” … As in Lockett , Hand’s counsel clearly promised the jury that Hand was going to testify.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.F. and C.F. (Minor Children), C.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2020

Because she has a prior felony conviction, she does not qualify for Section 8 housing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229-30.

TRAVELERS INDEM. CO., HARTFORD v. State Ex Rel. Favre

154 Ind. App. 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1972

Adamson, et al. (1887), 114 Ind. 282, 290 , the court said: “The relation of principal and agent may be established by circumstantial evidence . . .” … We are of the opinion the act of shooting by McAllister was authorized by Brewster, the duly appointed and qualified constable, who had legally made McAllister his deputy to assist in the arrest of traffic offenders and they

In the Matter of the Adoption of: J.K. (Minor Child), T.L. v. B.K. and Br.K. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2019

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 25 2019, 9:17 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Factual findings “are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them [and] . . .

Kristine Bunch v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

State, 697 N.E.2d 1255, 1257 (Ind. 1998). 2 clearly erred in denying Bunch relief on this claim. … App. 2003) (statement proffered as newly-discovered evidence did not qualify as a dying declaration and therefore the evidence could not be produced at a new trial), trans.

Frye v. Trustees of the Rumbletown Free Methodist Church

657 N.E.2d 745 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1995

-In determining which entrants qualify as public invitees, the Indiana Supreme Court has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 382. Id. … The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those Indiana cases in which individuals visiting churches have been determined to be public invitees. In St.

Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of Indianapolis, and Indy Parks and Recreation v. Richard Kaler

73 N.E.3d 712 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

Addressing Burrell’s first element—unreasonable risk of harm—the Pfenning court reasoned that “the risk of a person on a golf course being struck by a golf ball does not qualify as the Court of … It was clearly visible that there was no back railing for spectators Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1604-CT-865 | March 23, 2017 Page 12 of 14  sitting on the top row, but Funston leaned back

Noah Pittman v. State of Indiana

45 N.E.3d 805 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2015

(6) The defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged. (7) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution. (8) The prosecution is untimely brought. … [33] The State maintains that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Pittman acted with the requisite state of mind and took a substantial step to convict him of attempted stalking as

Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Home Owners Association, Inc., Andre B. Lacy, Julia L. Lacy, Elliot J. & Serena Androphy v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, and Dan Jacobs

106 N.E.3d 482 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2018

Section 36-7-11.1- 10(c) clearly and unambiguously states the appropriate standard of review for these decisions. … Clearly, this is an instance where people hold a wide variety of opinions.

In the Matter of J.C., Minor Child, A Child in Need of Services, B.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2016

Sufficiency of the Evidence [38] Mother contends that the juvenile court’s adjudication of Child as CHINS is clearly erroneous. … Mother has failed to meet her burden to show that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.4 [48] Affirmed.

CC v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2017

“To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.” Casselman v. … To obtain relief, the error must have made a fair trial impossible or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1611-JV-2960 | April 12, 2017 Page 7 of 10  amounted to a clearly blatant violation

Stokes v. State

908 N.E.2d 295 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2009

To qualify as fundamental, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Id. … Stokes called one of his girlfriends and asked her to say, apparently to establish an alibi, Stokes had been with her. There was ample evidence to support Stokes' convictions. 5.

In Re the Matter of Patricia Rumfelt v. Alicia Hollars and Harry Arndt (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2017

Code §§ 31-17-5 because she no longer qualifies as a grandparent and, at the time of Child’s adoption by Mother’s husband, Rumfelt did not have any already-established right to visitation with Child … [28] Even assuming that Rumfelt is a person qualified to seek grandparent visitation under Ind.

Indiana State Fair Board v. Hockey Corp. of America

165 Ind. App. 544 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1975

the state had the right to establish the free school system. … Clearly, the operation of an ice skating rink and a retail and rental skate shop is not within the recognized definition of agriculture.

Joseph M. Backenstoes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

121 N.E.3d 141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2019

The statute lists several offenses that qualify as serious violent felonies, including our own version of burglary (I.C. § 35-43-2- 1); see also Louisiana Revised Statute 14:62.2 (providing, in part, that … Let me find it. . . it talks Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1297 | January 23, 2019 Page 7 of 11  about, of course testimony from the officers which we clearly

Serrano v. State

808 N.E.2d 724 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2004

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Serrano argues that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence to establish his age at the time of the offense. … If that representation is accurate, Serrano clearly has a basis for a motion to dismiss the information if the State chooses to re-file the charges.

Jeremy J. Haug v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2019

[24] The first issue is whether the trial court’s decision to allow Haug to represent himself was clearly erroneous. … The trial court’s determination of competence to act pro se is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.W. (Child), and, Cl.W. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Analysis [9] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v. … “Reviewing whether the evidence ‘clearly and convincingly’ supports the findings, or the findings ‘clearly and convincingly’ support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the