Case law

John M. Mayer, Jr., as Special Administrator of the Estate of Paige R. Winn v. Michael. W. Davis

991 N.E.2d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2013

In the instant matter, the record clearly demonstrates that Davis failed to either request that the trial court open an estate for Winn or file a claim against the Estate within the permissible timeframe set forth in Indiana … Unlike in Pistalo, the instant appeal stems from a suit against the deceased tortfeasor’s estate seeking to establish liability on behalf of the deceased tortfeasor.

Clem v. Christole, Inc.

548 N.E.2d 1180 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1990

The challenger’s burden is to clearly and convincingly demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the statute. … The Commission may well be right that it is a good idea, but that does not establish that the Nollans (and other coastal residents) alone can be compelled to contribute to its realization.

Jacob Adams v. Hamilton County, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2025

A county qualifies as a “person” under the Act. I.C. § 34-14-1- 13. … Further, the bill would more clearly articulate accreditation, training, testing, and reporting requirements imposed by the Department on County Service Officers.

Hutchens v. Covert

39 Ind. App. 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1906

not whether the soldier was in line of duty at the time he received his injury, in the sense that he was not disobeying any military law, rule, or regulation, or guilty of any culpable negligence, but rather what is the qualify … We are clearly of the opinion that, under the facts pleaded, appellant has not brought herself within the statute, and that she has no right of recovery. Judgment affirmed.

City of Evansville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

965 N.E.2d 92 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2012

“Opinions expressing a mere possibility with regard to a hypothetical situation are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” … If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. We addressed a similar argument in Newnam.

Ranger Team Building, LLC v. Vince Caccavale (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2020

Clearly, the “Use Limitation” as specified by the Starke County authorities prohibits any residential construction on the subject property. … It is the “Use Limitation” which is clearly the cause of termination of this [P]urchase [A]greement. (Appellant’s App. Vol. IV, pp. 115-16).

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2013

the issue of self-defense, “the State’s failure to present evidence at the initial hearing overcoming his defense made Gilmore immune from further prosecution[.]” … Thus, the State clearly and successfully sought to avoid any misconduct regarding its theory of the case during voir dire.

Michael Wayne Wise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2016

He paid for each order upon delivery because he did not qualify for a line of credit. … We review its rulings for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. Lake County Solid Waste Management District

847 N.E.2d 974 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2006

The District clearly has a role in helping the IDEM determine whether a need exists. The District can, for example, submit comments to the IDEM during the pub-lice comment period. … Also, the District clearly has other duties and responsibilities under IC 13-21-5 in addition to projecting the needs of the district. 183.

K.F. v. State of Indiana

961 N.E.2d 501 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2012

Thus, to support a true finding for theft as alleged, the State was required to establish that K.F. … An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v.

Robert Marks v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2013

Marks’s dialogues with the trial court concerning his employment status, and his ability to qualify for court-appointed counsel also demonstrate that Marks understood the difference between qualifying for appointed counsel … and not qualifying for appointed counsel.

D.H. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2013

A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the juvenile court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that … Thus, D.H. has failed to establish juvenile court error here, as his maximum, dispositional sentence did not exceed two years.

Indiana Farm Gas Production Co. v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.

662 N.E.2d 977 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1996

SIGECO's proffered exception to Indiana's well-established Rule of Capture. … But, because of the fugitive nature of oil, which can flow from and to adjoining lands, the lessor owns the oil only in a qualified sense.

Shanholt v. State

448 N.E.2d 308 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1983

The state will not be able to establish that; therefore, it is clearly unduly prejudicial. THE COURT: I think it assumes a fact that's not in evidence, but she's already answered the question. MR. … Janet was clearly given a full-blown sentencing hearing and in no way was she stifled.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.N.B. (Minor Child), and F.B. (Mother) and J.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2019

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … Father claims this was an abuse of discretion because “[t]he record was replete with evidence leading to the inexorable conclusion that” the Campbells “were qualified persons most suitable and willing

Daniel Wahl and Saundra Wahl v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2020

Dragan could not be qualified to testify as an expert since “[a] very small amount of Dr. … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Kesling v. Kesling

967 N.E.2d 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2012

While we review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, we review de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. Id.; Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 59 (Ind.2002). … We will conclude a judgment is clearly erroneous if no evidence supports the findings, the findings fail to support the judgment, or if the trial court applies the incorrect legal standard.

Julian v. State

811 N.E.2d 392 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a), the trial court has the discretion to allow a witness, who is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education," to testify in the form of an opinion … When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor during sentencing, the defendant must establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record

Nathaniel Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

But we view this exception as an extremely narrow one, available only “when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles [of due process], and … A juror who qualifies for removal under these constitutional or statutory criteria may be removed as an “incompetent juror,” while a juror “who is not removable for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.W. and D.C. (Minor Children), and J.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2017

II is properly clothed, fed, and supervised; establish Father’s paternity to J.W. … [10] In April of 2014, Father’s paternity to D.C. was established.