Case law

Kien v. State

866 N.E.2d 377 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2007

Furthermore, while we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s legal conclusions, we accept its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Carew, 817 N.E.2d at 285 . … “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. State, 582 N.E.2d 432, 435 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).

GREG SHINALL v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR TOWN OF OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2023

Stated differently, they constitute property rights of a qualified or restricted nature.” Center Townhouse Corp. v. City of Mishawaka, 882 N.E.2d 762, 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted). … [21] Taken as true, the allegations in Shinalls’ petition clearly establish that they are aggrieved for purposes of establishing standing to seek judicial review under INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1603(a)(2)

Kenneth Bardonner v. Veronika Bardonner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2024

Whether the trial court clearly erred when it modified his parenting time with Child. [2] We affirm. … The signs were clearly visible from the windows of Mother’s home, within [Child]’s view.

Jessica M. Skeens v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2020

On appeal, she argues for the first time that the trial court erred in admitting those opinions because Trooper Keegan was not qualified to render them. … In sum, Skeens has failed to establish an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm her convictions.

Eastbrook Community Schools Corp. v. Eastbrook Education Ass'n

566 N.E.2d 63 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1990

Moe Smedley (Smedley) was selected for the head basketball coaching position; however, there was no teaching vacancy for which Smedley was qualified. … This issue does not merit reversal of summary judgment since the contract clearly gives the arbitrator jurisdiction over contract disputes. This is not a unit determination issue to be made under CEEBA. II.

Munster Medical Research Foundation d/b/a Munster Community Hospital v. Melodyann Clark

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2026

[6] On February 10, the Estate sent a letter to the Hospital “tak[ing] issue with” the Hospital’s qualified response to Request 1 and objections to Requests 2 through 10. Appellant’s App. Vol. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Jennings v.

Joe E. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id. … Here, the parties stipulated that Jackson had a prior qualifying conviction and could not lawfully possess a firearm. Tr. Vol. 2 at 75; State’s Ex. 1.

Caddyshack Looper, LLC v. Long Beach Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals

22 N.E.3d 694 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2014

BZA’s action that is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 12 otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The evidence establishes that the cost associated with removal of the seawall would be substantial.

Terrence T. Walker v. State of Indiana

988 N.E.2d 341 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 14, 2013

This testimony clearly violated Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), but we cannot conclude that it deprived Walker of a fair trial. … Indeed, alternate jurors are presumed to be fair and equally qualified to the task. Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875, 881-82 (Ind. 1997) (citations omitted).

PSI Energy, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co.

801 N.E.2d 705 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 2004

Further, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from *730 those in Herman, where the insured discharged a lethal weapon into a crowd of people. … We will reverse the trial court only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Estate of Ballard v. Ballard

434 N.E.2d 136 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1982

Not all testimony about extrajudicial utterances of a third person made outside the presence of the parties qualifies as hearsay evidence. Whether it is hearsay depends on the purpose for which it is offered. … T.R. 38(B) clearly provides that a demand for trial by jury is permissible “of any issue triable of right by a jury.” (emphasis added). It then follows, is the instant case one where a jury trial can be demanded?

Johnston v. State

702 N.E.2d 1085 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1998

Nowhere is the distinction between ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ more clearly brought into focus than in the area of jurisdiction. … By its qualifying language, restricting the effect of the judgment to the particular party involved, I can only construe the holding in Stidham to say that such a judgment is voidable rather than void.

American Cyanamid Co. v. Stephen

623 N.E.2d 1065 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1993

Aware of the carry over problems created by Scepter, American Cyanamid established a settlement program in 1988 to compensate farmers for crop damage due to Seepter use. … Thus, our review is limited to the second inquiry, ie., whether the conclusions of law and judgment are clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous.

Sanjari v. State

942 N.E.2d 134 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2011

An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Id. at 498. … Thus, we conclude that he has failed to meet his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate. C.

Cassidy v. Padgett, Exr.

99 Ind. App. 239 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1934

Padgett is the duly qualified executor thereof, and that on April 26, 1930, the said Jennie Cassidy, the widow of the testator, duly elected in writing to renounce her rights under said will and elected to take under the … Wills have been made and title to real estate acquired by purchase upon the faith of, and in reliance upon, the rule thus established, and the same has therefore become a rule of property.

Wooden v. State

757 N.E.2d 212 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2001

In order to qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Id. (quoting Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind.1999)). … Clearly, such a fee is not authorized by statute. The most Wooden can be ordered to pay is $100.

Evan J. Hodge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2017

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1701-CR-111 | November 30, 2017 Page 5 of 12  qualify as dying declarations and constituted hearsay because no evidence was presented that Joshua

Brookview Properties, LLC and First Merchants Bank of Central Indiana v. Plainfield Plan Commission

15 N.E.3d 48 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

The Commitments are explicit that no preliminary plan was submitted, and Article 6.1 clearly differentiates between a concept plan and a preliminary plan. … And the evidence clearly supports the finding in that the proposed development does not take into consideration the intent of the PUD to encourage mixed use development.

Indiana Education Employment Relations Board v. Board of School Trustees of Delphi Community School Corp.

174 Ind. App. 481 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1977

Section 5 of the Act clearly contemplates that the discussion of the factors enumerated therein are to be on behalf of all members of the school employees’ bargaining unit. … Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; or 3. In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or short of statutory right; or 4.

Crist, Inc. v. Whitacre

147 Ind. App. 16 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1970

Defendants make a good case for the principle of establishing minimum standards of acceptable human conduct on the basis of the knowledge possessed by the hypothetical “reasonable man”. … The presumption is that appellant [the employer] was not guilty of a breach of its legal duty, and we can not supply by intendment facts tending to establish such breach ....