Case law

Morales v. State

749 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2001

Police Station On the other hand, Morales was clearly subjected to a custodial interroga *1266 tion at the police station. Officer Ennis drove Morales to the station in a police car. … In order to establish that a denial of a mistrial motion constituted an abuse of discretion, the appellant must demonstrate that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected.

Ashworth v. Ehrgott

934 N.E.2d 152 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2010

A decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the *158 logic and effect of the facts and civreum-stances that were before the trial court. Young, 891 N.E.2d at 1047 . … We address each of these *159 payments separately to determine whether they qualify as alimony/maintenance, which would be entitled to a deduction from Father's weekly gross income, or whether they qualify as property settlement

Ross v. Cheema

696 N.E.2d 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1998

"[T]he experience in this state is that juries are equally qualified to judge someone's emotional injury *440 as they are to judge someone's pain and suffering, and the presence or absence of some physical injury does nothing … Brodsky , `It appears completely inconsistent to argue that the medical profession is absolutely unable to establish a causal connection in the case where there is no impact at all, but that the slightest impact.... suddenly

Major Loren Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2020

Wilson argues that T.R.’s statements to Officer Manley did not qualify as an excited utterance. … “[U]nder the . . . actual evidence test, the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish only one or even several

Allen Houx v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2020

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Cox v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1025, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). … The Court concluded the victim was still under the stress of excitement when she spoke with the officer, and as a result her statements qualified as excited utterances that were not subject to the

The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Likes Law Office, LLC Kevin L. Likes Rickey D. Whitaker and Cheryl L. Whitaker

44 N.E.3d 1279 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … A party offering the affidavit bears the burden of establishing its admissibility. Id.

John Shotts II v. Anonymous Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Facility, Anonymous Hospital, Anonymous M.D., Anonymous Long-Term Hospital (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2019

On April 5, 2016, the IDOI sent a letter to Shotts’ attorney notifying him that the Defendants were qualified health care providers under the Medical Malpractice Act (“Act”), Indiana Code Article 34-18 … good cause for his failure to adhere to the deadlines established by the Act and as set by Kraege

Christopher A. Toth v. Julia L. Noblitt (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2017

long enough to qualify for benefits. … Again, “[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Id.

Reeves v. Boyd & Sons, Inc.

654 N.E.2d 864 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1995

Carr's initial testimony as to his training and medical experience qualify him as an expert witness. … The test result was hearsay and does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule as a business record.

White v. White

655 N.E.2d 523 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corp. (1994) 4th Dist.Ind.App., 632 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 , the trial court excluded the testimony of a purported expert witness after determining that the witness did not qualify as an expert … Upon appeal, we will deem waived an issue that was neither presented mor established at trial. See, eg., Franklin Bank and Trust Co. v. Mithoefer (1990) Ind., 563 N.E.2d 551, 553 ; Allstate v.

Curtis Elliott v. Gradex, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2020

occurred as he turned into Riddell’s driveway, our review of Indiana cases reveals none that support Elliott’s 7 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 (1965) provides that the following persons qualify … Code § 34-13-3-3(18) (declaring “[T]his subdivision [governing immunity for governmental entities and employees] shall not be construed to relieve a responsible governmental entity from the continuing duty

Rachelle (Purcell) LaMonde v. Gary Purcell (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2018

Findings will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

In Re the Adoption of R.A.F., J.H. and W.N. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and D.F. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

[13] Turning to the provisions of the adoption statute, the statute itself clearly expresses that when the child is a ward of DCS, “a petition to adopt [the child] may be granted only if written consent … We therefore hold the [DCS’s] power to withhold consent to adoption, regardless of the means by which the [DCS] obtained custody, is qualified by [I.C. §] 31-3-1-6(g), allowing the

Finley v. Chain

176 Ind. App. 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1978

Finley also urges us to consider that the amounts already paid have established a substantial equity in the purchasers. … Additionally, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the cause of the Finley’s inability to procure the renewal.

Joe Chuck Pittman v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2024

.… Which allows – qualifies me to be an attorney according to the Black Laws Dictionary (sic). … Both the charging information and the final jury instructions clearly establish that Pittman’s felony-murder conviction is based on Ortiz’s death, while his three Level 3 felony attempted robbery convictions

Rodriguez v. State

868 N.E.2d 551 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

This evidence is sufficient to establish that Rodriguez touched C.S. with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. See Sanchez v. … After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case, the trial court acknowledged that neither Rodriguez's offense nor character qualifies as the worst of the worst. Tr. p. 150.

Lawon Browning v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

Thus, Browning has failed to meet his burden to establish bias. Id. … An abuse of a trial court’s discretion occurs when its ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Fox v. State

717 N.E.2d 957 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1999

Our supreme court has also held that “[t]o qualify as ‘fundamental error,’ the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.” Id. … Fox has not established reversible error with regard to this issue. See Joyner, 678 N.E.2d at 390 .

Chicago & Erie Railway Co. v. Cummings

24 Ind. App. 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 1899

True it does not aver, in express terms, that he was duly appointed *196 and qualified, but it does show the capacity in which he sues. … Many other cases might be cited, but the rule is so firmly established that it would be useless. Counsel for appellant have cited us to the case of Aurelius v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 19 Ind.

Dawson v. Hummer

649 N.E.2d 653 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1995

Because the facts are in dispute as to whether Realtors committed fraud, we cannot say as a matter of law that this exeulpatory clause renders Realtors immune from liability. … We stated "[the element of reliance is established only where the complaining party demonstrates he had a right to rely upon defendant's representations." Id. at 1316 .