Case law

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

Moster v. Bower

153 Ind. App. 158 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1972

The store was a retail sporting goods establishment and at the moment of the tragedy contained 500,000 shot gun *161 shell primers stacked near the entrance, plus about fifty pounds of gunpowder. … The physical facts attending the situation in which he was found were clearly competent evidence as to the cause of the accident and manner of its occurrence.

Ittenbach v. Thomas

48 Ind. App. 420 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1911

In this instruction the court undertook to inform the jury what facts appellee was required to establish in order to entitle her to a verdict. … Such an instruction amounts to a direction to the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiff, if the facts enumerated therein are established by the evidence, and that the facts-so enumerated are sufficient, if established

Jarred L. Eib v. State Employees' Appeals Commission, Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2020

action only if it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … We will affirm the agency’s judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Id.

Debra K. Ford, Personal Representative of the Estate of Darlene M. Welsh v. Indiana Heart Hospital (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2017

. ¶ 9, and by failing to establish such a “policy and procedure” with respect to “removal of temporary pacing wires” to begin with. Id. ¶ 10. … [36] This clearly precludes Ford, as a matter of law, from recovering under her first theory. But the majority believes that Dillow’s affidavit saves Ford’s second theory from summary judgment.

Robert A. Wilson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … In addition, there is no evidence in the record that Wilson qualified for the sanction he now seeks.

Marlett v. State

878 N.E.2d 860 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2007

Making schools free from violence or the fear of violence clearly is an important societal concern. … Furthermore, even if there is some evidence that Marlett is sexually aroused by knives and/or violence, that by itself does not establish that he is an SVP.

Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2012

The State does not contend that it qualified Detective Perkins as an expert, but rather, that he qualified as a skilled witness. … The State argues it qualified Detective Perkins as a skilled witness by establishing that he had been a police officer for twenty-two years and a detective for fifteen years; he is assigned to the homicide, aggravated assault

Simon Property Group, L.P. v. Brandt Construction, Inc.

830 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2005

Thus, to agree with Landlord is, essentially, to say that notwithstanding the statutory requirement that a tort plaintiff must make a qualifying settlement offer to recover prejudgment interest, we will allow plaintiffs who … Similarly, in this case the Contract's indemnity provision clearly and unequivocally requires Brandt to indemnify General Partner for damage resulting from its own negligence.

Evans v. Murray

815 N.E.2d 216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2004

In November 2002, Father filed an action to establish paternity of M.A.S. On January 8, 2003, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt M.A.S., and Father objected to Stepfather's petition. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and the cireumstances. In re A.C., 770 N.E.2d 947 , 951 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

Houser v. Kaufman

972 N.E.2d 927 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2012

The doctor had given the patient immunizations that the doctor knew repeatedly caused the patient to lose consciousness, but the doctor failed to monitor the patient for a sufficient amount of time before permitting him to … Stacy clearly made an argument based upon Martin and its progeny to the trial court and repeats that argument on appeal.

Newbill v. State

884 N.E.2d 383 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2008

Therefore, we find that read as a whole, the instructions properly informed the jury that it was to consider the testimony and evidence presented, and to judge that evidence in order to reach its conclusion of whether the State established … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Saunders v.

Jenkins v. Hatcher

163 Ind. App. 95 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1975

Acts 1969, ch. 488, establishes a different procedure to be followed in disciplinary action taken against firemen or other civil service employees in cities which qualify. … The statute's express provision for an appeal from a Board suspension clearly indicates that a fireman's hearing rights are in no way circumscribed by the statutory limitation on judicial review.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.M. and A.M. (Minor Children) and J.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2012

These allegations must be established by clear and convincing evidence. … We therefore cannot say the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous. 2.

Will Thomas v. State of Indiana

65 N.E.3d 1096 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2016

We review its rulings “for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects … Moreover, both this Court and the Indiana Supreme Court have held that dog sniffs are sufficient to establish probable cause. State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (Ind. 2010) (citing Neuhoff v.

Flynn v. State

702 N.E.2d 741 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1998

Also, the party offering the recording must establish that the witness has no present recollection of the events to be proven in order for the writing to be admitted. Id. … Flynn withdrew his request and clearly indicated he did not want to change counsel. We do not see what more the trial court could have done.

In Re the Guardianship of John T. Aldrich, an Adult, Brock L. Aldrich v. Sandra Aldrich (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2018

[12] Brock argues: (1) the trial court erred by establishing a guardianship when a valid power of attorney (POA2) already existed; or (2) if the trial court did not err in establishing the guardianship … There is also a dispute as to whether Brock qualifies as an attorney in fact pursuant to POA2 because that document requires two physicians to certify in writing that John is incapacitated before Brock’s powers

Adams v. Slater

132 Ind. App. 105 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1961

Wherever the word “child” is used in a restricted sense it is specifically qualified or clarified by other words within the same section of the statute. … Here, the only qualification made is that an adult adopted child shall inherit from his natural parents, which is clearly a distinction not afforded to adopted minor children.

Bennett v. Crownlife Insurance

776 N.E.2d 1264 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2002

Rather, the first question clearly asks whether the applicant has ever had or been treated for certain specific illnesses. … Thus, his medical problems qualified as an ailment. Moreover, he had “consulted” with a doctor for the problems.

A.C. v. Estate of Crabtree

809 N.E.2d 433 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2004

Clearly, if a tortfeasor is deceased, both the ability to punish and the need to deter like conduct on his or her behalf in the future are lost. … If there is to be a difference in legal treatment, it should be clearly and unequivocally established by the legislature.