Case law

Davon Nathaniel Jones v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2025

“We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Redding v. State, 244 N.E.3d 477, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). … [26] The State argues that none of the evidence Jones challenges here qualifies as evidence of another crime, wrong, or other act for purposes of Rule 404(b).

Gary Amick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Mar … Indiana Code Section 12-23-8.1-4 provides: The court may deny the request if after conducting a presentence investigation the court finds that the individual would not qualify

Easterday v. Easterday

105 Ind. App. 80 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1937

She qualified as executrix of the will. Appellant was the second childless wife of the testator. … And if his estate was clearly solvent that his widow would be entitled to such $500 out of the first moneys received by the executrix of his estate. Sec. 6-711 Burns 1933, Sec. 3077 Baldwin’s 1934.

Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, and Madison City Board of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2019

is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … the same factors and circumstances and reached a different decision. 6 6 Intervenors argue that White Barn’s application for a conditional use permit should have been denied because it qualified

Johnson v. State

952 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2011

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … In Wilson and Moseby, we clarified that either a judge or a member of a judge’s staff may qualify as the “proper officer” since I.C. § 35-33-5-2(a) specifies “with the judge.” Wilson v.

A.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2020

“A decision is an abuse of discretion if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. at 169. … whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Fike Investments, LLC v. Gregory L. Wilson, Sr., Executive Director of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2025

The Ultimate Authority affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Fikes do not qualify for the exemption from application of the IFHA. … App. 2013) (applying plain language of I.C. § 23-18-3-3(a) to determine whether evidence established that employee of LLC requested firm’s services on his own behalf or if he requested firm’s services on behalf

Willie L. Montgomery v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2013

This clearly is not such a case. App. R. 14(D) is a catch-all provision, governing “other interlocutory appeals [that] may be taken only as provided by statute.” … R. 14(B) governs interlocutory appeals not qualifying under App. R. 14(A) Subsection (B) provides that other interlocutory appeals (i.e., those that do not qualify under App.

Omans v. State

412 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1980

Clearly Debbie was reluctant to express the incident in all its sordid details. In fact she admitted that she was embarrassed about testifying. … Although she had a limited sexual vocabulary Mary clearly established what happened to her. To hold otherwise would involve reweighing the evidence.

De Juna Don Sho Cox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2020

Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2020, 10:13 am court except for the purpose of establishing … vehicle’s passenger could see the handgun, was in the best position to access the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-560 | August 24, 2020 Page 7 of 8  gun, and no evidence clearly

Owens v. State

911 N.E.2d 18 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2009

The evidence favoring the conviction, including the testimony of the C.I., clearly establishes that Owens gave the C.I. cocaine in exchange for twenty dollars. … This evidence established that Owens delivered cocaine to the C.L, and Detective Duckworth's testimony established that the delivery took place within 1,000 feet of a youth program center.

Barrett v. Sipp

50 Ind. App. 304 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1912

It is true that in the case quoted from, the attack on the complaint was first made by assignment of error in that court, but Judge Mitchell in the opinion does not limit or qualify his words quoted to an attack on the complaint … Dollman, supra, said: ‘ ‘ The general rule in regard to the application of payments seems to be well established, that the payor and debtor owing two or more debts to the same creditor or payee, may direct the application

State Ex Rel. Newton v. Board of School Trustees

460 N.E.2d 533 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1984

The members of the 1975 Board were "available" and were qualified to enter findings. … Insubordination is clearly defined in the statute, 4 and "neglect of duty" is hardly so recondite as to be incomprehensible to one of Newton's educational attainments.

Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Champion

9 Ind. App. 510 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1894

When the facts which he was required to prove were established, they overcame the presumptions in favor of appellant. It is next insisted that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction: “11. … If the testimony sought to be elicited by the witness was competent, his previous examination discloses that he was qualified to testify on the subject.

Angela Brewer, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rickey A. Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc. d/b/a PETERBILT MOTORS CO.

98 N.E.3d 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2018

The manner of use required to establish "reasonably expectable use" under the circumstances of each case is a matter peculiarly within the province of a fact-finder. … Clearly, under Indiana Code Section 34-20-2-2, a product may be designed in such a way that it is unreasonably unsafe and defective for the product's intended or expected use. See Hoffman v. E.W.

Robert E. Redington v. State of Indiana

992 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2013

Put another way, there is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate. … Mayer’s ‘concerns’ were based on Redington’s ‘violent or emotionally unstable conduct,’ the State clearly failed to establish by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Redington is ‘dangerous’ as defined” by Ind.Code § 35-47

State Ex Rel. Gilkison v. Clifford

120 Ind. App. 84 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 1950

“Thereafter in the latter part of October, 1949, the Governor of Indiana appointed the respondent as Judge of the Porter Circuit Court, Porter County, Indiana, and shortly thereafter respondent qualified and took office as … E. 2d 651 , established as the law of the case that the original exhibits could not be made a part of the bill of exceptions.

Local 1963 of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Madison County, Indiana, Madison County Assessor, and Madison County Recorder

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2013

Indiana Code § 5-4-1-1 UAW further claims that the language of Section 1 establishes that deputies are employees of the County. … This court found that “[i]t is elementary that 13 there can be no deputy without there first being a principal; the principal being the duly elected, qualified and acting official

Monika Schmidt v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2020

Schmidt, who qualified as an insured under her friend’s policy, demanded the underinsured motorist coverage limits from Allstate. … Clearly, a relationship exists between an insurer and its insured because they are in privity of contract.

U.S. Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Indiana Department of Transportation

714 N.E.2d 1244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1999

Outdoor “bears the burden of establishing its invalidity.” Id. … In establishing roadside areas to be governed by the applicable sign regulations, Ind.