Case law

Edward John Meiggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing … But our Supreme Court has clearly stated that claims of inconsistent verdicts are not reviewable on appeal. Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 649 (Ind. 2010).

Tre Ron Smith v. State of Indiana

121 N.E.3d 669 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2019

The Court reasoned the ability to track 911 calls provided “safeguards against making false reports with immunity[,]” id. at 1689, which was a concern in earlier cases. … [26] A “close case” also exists here; however, I do not believe the information given by the anonymous caller rose to the same level of reliability that the Navarette Court found sufficient to establish

Jonah Long v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

The record clearly explains that trial evidence was mistakenly commingled. … To qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face. Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Ind. 1997).

Anthony Graff v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2025

Because these circumstances do not establish that Graff’s statements to police were compelled, he has failed to establish that his right against compelled self-incrimination was violated. … An abuse of discretion occurs “only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2546 | January 28, 2025 Page 14 of 18  of the facts

In Re: The Marriage of Kenneth G. Haynie, Jr. v. Teresa H. Haynie

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before May 30 2013, 9:13 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id.

Lake Lighting Co. v. Lewis

29 Ind. App. 164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1902

The jury could not fail to have had this view of the matter clearly before them. … It is well settled by our decisions that in establishing the future physical and mental impairment for which damages may be recovered in such cases, by the testimony of duly qualified witnesses, they may be permitted to give

Dewbrew v. Dewbrew

849 N.E.2d 636 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2006

Unlike the trial court, we find the parties' property settlement agreement to be clearly ambiguous. … Indiana courts have the authority to award, and therefore to modify, spousal maintenance only where the spouse receiving payments is incapacitated, provides care to an incapacitated child of the marriage, or qualifies for

Joyce v. Hanover Community School. Corp.

150 Ind. App. 296 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1971

Armstrong was appointed and qualified and relator removed from the state. … The uncontradicted evidence further establishes that the superintendent, Mr.

Steven Norris v. Jennifer Norris

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2025

The non-debtor ex-spouse may look to the debtor for reimbursement pursuant to any nondischargeable “hold harmless” obligations, but the non-debtor ex-spouse is not immune from … Jennifer still has an obligation to pay Steven the remaining debt amount which the record clearly shows is $4,340.86, which the majority found.

In Re: The Guardianship of C.R. and A.R. E.R. v. M.S. and D.S. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2016

[33] Notably, during her direct examination, Hood testified that she is not qualified to issue a PTSD diagnosis, however, as a licensed medical and family therapist, she is “qualified to suggest a diagnosis … Accordingly, we established that Apple exceeded her mandate by suggesting how visits should proceed.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Hupp

605 N.E.2d 768 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1992

This provision clearly states that the “home” continues to exist under some circumstances even though the child is temporarily absent from the customary setting. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

McCool v. Ayres

136 Ind. App. 72 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1963

Wuethrich, was appointed and qualified as Administra *93 tor with the Will Annexed of the estate. … We are convinced that the controlling and decisive facts and factors in the case were established without controversy and that such facts and factors establish as a matter of law that the deed executed by decedent to the

Burger Man, Inc. v. Jordan Paper Products, Inc.

170 Ind. App. 295 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1976

Furthermore, Jordan’s answers to interrogatories propounded by Vesco and Burger Man clearly indicate that the contract being sued upon was oral. … Such circumstances might occur where the duplicate is not fully legible or where only a portion of the total original document is offered and the remainder would be useful for cross examination, or might qualify the portion

Paris Knox v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2012

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the FILED Oct 10 2012, 9:16 am purpose of establishing … Brief of Appellant at 5. 2 Although Knox’s Class D felony of intimidation does not qualify as a serious violent felony under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5, both of his Class B felonies qualify.

Conder v. State

953 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2011

We accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, though we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. Conder argues that his trial counsel, Attorney Baratz, was ineffective. … Appellant’s Br. p. 14. *1204 As for whether Attorney Baratz’s performance was deficient, we note that “[f]ew points of law are as clearly established as the principle that tactical or strategic decisions will not support

Gatto v. St. Richard School, Inc.

774 N.E.2d 914 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2002

Whether the qualified privilege protects a statement is a question of law. Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind. 1992). … addressed in person to a school board at a school board meeting concerning the curriculum and instruction in an English class at a public high school in which his son was enrolled and his son's difficulties with the class clearly

William E. Morrison and Sonya Morrison v. Putnam County Commissioners, and Donald Richards (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2018

[8] When reviewing a trial court’s ruling stemming from a bench trial, we will only set aside the judgment if it is clearly erroneous. E.g., WindGate Props., LLC v. Sanders, 93 N.E.3d 809, 813 (Ind. … Furthermore, the trial court took great care in its order to distinguish between items that were part of normal farming activities, which are not affected by the judgment, and items that did not qualify as

Mark A. Price v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2017

Sufficiency of the Evidence [10] To obtain a conviction for SVF, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Price possessed a firearm after having been convicted of a crime that qualifies … [11] Where, as here, the State does not allege actual possession, it must establish constructive possession.

Nahamani Sargent v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2017

Sufficiency of the Evidence [14] To obtain a conviction for SVF, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sargent possessed a firearm after having been convicted of a crime that qualifies … [15] Where, as here, the State does not allege actual possession, it must establish constructive possession.

Donzahue Pearson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2012

We therefore reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Thus, one could argue that the hotel, rather than Pearson’s parents’ home, was Pearson’s “permanent home and principal establishment.”