Case law

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.

Hogle v. Reliance Manufacturing Company

113 Ind. App. 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1943

The rule is well established that under such circumstances the issuance and service of summons is waived. In the case of Louisville, New Albany and Chicago R. W. Co. v. … The case before us clearly comes within the rule that where an amendment to a complaint sets up no new matter or claim, but merely amplifies and restates with more certainty, or in a different form, the cause of action set

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.

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.

Jeff West v. J. Greg Allen Builder, Inc., and Princeton Homes, and Greg Allen

92 N.E.3d 634 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2017

All of these funds were transferred directly from Princeton to GABI, in contravention of established company policy. … This is, perhaps, because the allegations against West seem to clearly qualify as libel per se.

Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt

775 N.E.2d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2002

Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Carmichael, 754 N.E.2d at 625 . … The trial court’s damages award is within the scope of the evidence and, thus, is not clearly erroneous.

Hancock v. Maynard

72 Ind. App. 661 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1920

Hancock qualified as the executor of the said will of Martha J. Maynard, deceased. Both estates are still pending settlement in the Madison Circuit Court, and the said Alvis F. … Maynard, we must keep in mind some well-established principles. 3.

Davis v. State

418 N.E.2d 256 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1981

Thus, a trial court's ruling disallowing the withdrawal of a plea will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be established that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Id. … IC 35-5-6-2 clearly requires that any recommendation made by the prosecutor on a felony charge must be in writing.

Jones v. Womacks

852 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2006

However, Section 3.2 clearly does not call for a traditional election or referendum procedure by ballot. … This would appear to have placed upon the City the burden to establish the existence of these primary determinants.

Todd Richmond v. Erin Mager (Richmond)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2012

“Judgments in custody matters generally turn on essential factual determinations and will be set aside only when they are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 1112. … Therefore, the evidence presented by the parties was clearly divergent. We reject Father’s blatant invitation to reweigh the evidence.

In Re: Adoption of L.A.C. and S.T.A., S.C. and L.A. v. N.C. and K.R.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2014

When the Prospective Adoptive Parents first gained custody of S.A., she was behind on her immunizations and had developmental delays in speech. … Finding 14 is not clearly erroneous.

Neaveill v. State

474 N.E.2d 1045 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1985

Barbara neither asserted an insanity defense nor claimed to be incompetent to stand trial, either of which would have required the court to appoint qualified psychiatrists, elinical psychologists, or physicians, examine her … Viewed from the perspective of appellate review, the evidence was sufficient to establish as to Counts I, II, and V, that Barbara aided and abetted her husband in committing the offenses of child molesting and incest, that

Cho v. Purdue Research Foundation

803 N.E.2d 1161 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2004

In any event, while these facts certainly establish that PRF was aware of the construction, this awareness nevertheless does not establish the sort of active consent needed to maintain a mechanic's lien. … See id. f Cho argues that Ace Construction qualifies as a "laborer" or "persons performing labor or furnishing materials" as those terms and that phrase are used in the mechanic's lien statute.

KIRTMAN, ADMINISTRATOR ETC. v. Gallentine

131 Ind. App. 150 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1960

This agreement was reduced to writing and signed by George, Minnie’s three sons and their wives, her daugh *154 ter and her husband, and Wenning & Porter, the funeral establishment. … Kirtman, was appointed and qualified as Administrator of Minnie’s estate. Arthur A. Kirtman made a few more payments on the real estate contract to his son as Administrator. After that, Arthur W.

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

In the Matter of: A v. & E v. (Children Alleged to be in Need of Services) and A.P. (Mother) A.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2018

We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. … The doctor’s decision to second- guess Mother’s care does not establish a CHINS.” (Id.

Susan Edwards v. Deutsche Bank National, Trust Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any   court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law … The Bank acknowledged that Edwards was immune from personal liability on the note because of her earlier bankruptcy, but still wanted to foreclose on the mortgaged property because of Edwards’s default on the note.

Kranz v. Meyers Subdivision Property Owners Ass'n

969 N.E.2d 1068 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2012

We do not reverse the agency’s decision unless the 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 … See also Ind.Code § 14-10-1-1 (establishing the NRC). 2 .

MEGA OIL, INC. v. CITATION 2004 INVESTMENT LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2023

In footnote five of its brief supporting its motion for partial summary judgment, Citation qualified its use of the phrase “law of the cases,” stating: Plaintiff acknowledges that this Court … Such extraordinary circumstances clearly do not apply here. Id. (citation omitted).

Johnson v. State

879 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2008

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court’s action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … Based upon the foregoing, and the fact that our state legislature has neither invalidated Indiana Code section 9-30-6-5(c)(l) nor qualified its application, we reject Johnson’s contention that the trial court erred by admitting