Case law

Abbott v. State

950 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2011

All that mattered was that an objective observer could discern that the activities occurring at the center qualified it as a youth program center. Id. The same is true here. … Although a record of arrests, without more, does not establish the "historical fact” that a defendant committed a criminal offense, a record of arrests, particularly a lengthy one, may reveal that a defendant has not been

South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Education Ass'n-South Bend

180 Ind. App. 299 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1979

Though finality may be lacking, because no election has yet been held, the irreparable harm NEA-South Bend will suffer is clearly defined. … The starting point is usually the traditional doctrine as applied to judgments of courts; that doctrine should be qualified or relaxed to whatever extent is desirable for making it a proper and useful tool for administrative

David Didion and Kristi Didion as Parents and Legal Guardians of Brayden Didion v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

999 N.E.2d 108 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2013

Once the moving party has met this burden with a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that a genuine issue does in fact exist. Id. … There is no dispute that Michael is a blood relative of Ginger's, but he would have to "reside" with her in the House in order to qualify as an insured pursuant to the Policy.

James E. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2018

Under the former, an enhanced sentence is available when a defendant qualifies as a habitual offender. See generally I.C. § 35-50-2-8. … In resolving the case, the Beach Court evaluated the “sequence of events” and determined that the felonies were “clearly” unrelated in the sense contemplated by the statute. Id. at 45.

Marcus A. Minor, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2025

And he argues that all of the errors, taken together, cumulatively establish reversible error. … “Because this is a factual determination, it is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.” Id.

State of Indiana v. David Biela, Gregory Czizek, James Liverman, and Stanley Mazur (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2017

In reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, we reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … (6) The defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged. (7) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution.

Van Bronckhorst v. Taube

168 Ind. App. 132 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1976

The Guy court stated the rule as follows: “It is established by the overwhelming weight of authority that equity will step in with its doctrine of estoppel to prevent an inequitable resort to the statute of limitations by … Const, art. 1, § 23 states that: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” 3 .

Mishler v. MAC Systems, Inc.

771 N.E.2d 92 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2002

After establishing the context, we will address the state constitutional issue. … Nevertheless, the power to issue an injunction should be used sparingly, and such relief should not be granted except in rare instances in which the law and the facts are clearly in the moving party's favor. Id.

Stephen Levendoski, Karen Levendoski, and Kathleen (Jensema) Gross v. Stanley Stevens (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2019

We cannot say that it was clearly erroneous for the trial court to include such facts. … As such, they argue that their partition petition does not qualify as a “claim” under the terms of the Agreement because the request to partition and sell the property was not related to Sarah’s estate.

Walling v. Appel Service Co., Inc.

641 N.E.2d 647 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1994

Thus, the Wallings maintain that because fuel oil qualifies as "solid waste" in the form of a liquid, Appel is liable under Indiana Code § 18-7-ll-6(c) We do not agree. … Indiana's solid waste management plan must comply with minimum requirements established under RCRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 6948 .

Larry D. Spivey Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2020

“An abuse [of discretion] occurs only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and the effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. … [4] The evidence presented at trial clearly showed that the manner in which Spivey handled the firearm was likely to cause death.

L. & G. Realty & Construction Co. v. City of Indianapolis

127 Ind. App. 315 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 1957

This is established by the terms of the deed granting a ‘right of way’ and then further clinched by the provision limiting the use of the grant for railroad purposes. … We deem appellant’s premise a correct one, and well within well-established rules of law. *331 In 19 Am. Jur., p. 530 , §67, appears this language: “. . .

In re The Estate of Mason R. Foertsch, Debra S. Foertsch v. Marcus Foertsch, David Foertsch, and Brian Foertsch

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2017

Item Five of the will describes the administration of a Qualified Terminal Interest Property Trust (“Q-Tip Trust”). … Under [Indiana’s approach], the first step is to establish the identity of the specific bequest.

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.

3 N.E.3d 989 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2014

Therefore, in order to prevail A.N. must establish fundamental error. See id. To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." … Clearly, out-of-court statement ... being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted that he was around the- [TRIAL COURT]: Mr.- [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: -kids.

Indiana Department of Transportation v. Shelly & Sands, Inc.

756 N.E.2d 1063 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2001

The Indiana General Assembly enacted the Tort Claims Act in order to establish procedures for cases involving prosecution of tort claims against governmental entities. Clifford v. … In Underwood, another panel of this court found that not all tort claims against the state involved an "injury to or death of a person or damage to property" as to qualify as a "loss" within the meaning of the Act, and the

Horton v. State

936 N.E.2d 1277 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2010

Our supreme court held the defendant's knowledge of the victim's pregnancy was not necessary for it to qualify as an aggravating cireumstance. Id. at 1120 . … This contrasts with the case before us, in which evidence clearly established Horton's daily sexual molestation of R.M. over a period of at least six months. Serino also cited Haycraft v.

Gamble v. State

831 N.E.2d 178 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2005

Our supreme court has recently considered how Crawford affects the admissibility of statements that qualify as excited utterances under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(2). Hammon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 444, 449-450 (2005). … State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind.2001) ("Errors in the giving or refusing of instructions are harmless *187 where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.").

Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Brownsburg Station Partners LLC

997 N.E.2d 1093 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2013

But the fact that the parties disagree over the meaning of the contract does not, in and of itself, establish an ambiguity. Everett Cash Mut. Ins. Co. v. … The seventy percent rate clearly applies to the percentage of tenants, not to the percentage of gross leasable area.

Wastewater One, LLC v. Floyd County Board of Zoning Appeals

947 N.E.2d 1040 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2011

With respect to finding No. 2 of the BZA, after a review of the transcript of the hearing it is clear that such finding is clearly erroneous in that the record lacks any facts to support the finding that expansion of the … provides that a court may provide relief only if the agency action is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Mark C. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2019

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Washington v. State, 840 N.E.2d 873, 879 (Ind. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-760 | December 31, 2019 Page 12 of 14  contends that the 2002 felony convictions do not qualify under the habitual offender statute