Case law

James E. Sizemore v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2013

He agreed to plead guilty to the class D felonies and the misdemeanors and to testify against Sizemore, in exchange for which the State agreed to dismiss the class B felony charge and grant him use immunity for his testimony … We will reverse a trial court’s decision only when the court’s action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Eddie Wilkerson v. Robert R. Carr and Lawyer Transport, Inc. (mem. dec.)

65 N.E.3d 596 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

We reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, … Rule 702 of the Indiana Rules of Evidence provides as follows with regards to the admissibility of expert witness testimony: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

Hollen v. State

740 N.E.2d 149 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2001

However, the information clearly states that Hollen's Battery occurred in Crawford County. … The court clearly considered Hollen's state of mind during sentencing.

Art Hill Ford, Inc. v. Callender

77 Ind. Dec. 21 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1980

Here, there is clearly evidence of probative value — some summarized by the Majority and some not — to support the jury's verdict. … Some of these defects were clearly breaches of warranty.

Wallace Henderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or where the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. … whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Elbert v. Elbert

579 N.E.2d 102 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1991

It is clearly otherwise. … After October 1, 1989, the Guidelines must be used in all Indiana courts to establish or modify support.

Roger Lee Kilburn v. Deirdre v. Kilburn (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2016

Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing … We “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A).

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.M.K. and A.O.K., minor children, and T.D., biological father T.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2013

The trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous when the findings of fact and conclusions thereon do not support it. Id. … When the juvenile court terminates the parent-child relationship “all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations, including any rights to custody, control, parenting time, or support pertaining to the

Buschman v. ADS CORP.

782 N.E.2d 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2003

Buschman's acceptance of ADS's Offer Letter was not qualified by any so-called 'contingency.' " In support of its argument, ADS relies on this court's opinion in Kahn v. … It is well established that an award of attorney's fees is not justified merely because a party loses on the merits. Chrysler, 637 N.E.2d at 840 .

Greenbush Cemetery Ass'n v. Van Natta

49 Ind. App. 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1911

E. 198 , in passing upon a similar provision of an act of the legislature, the court said: “We do not think this language was intended to or could be held to change or qualify the general rules of construction applicable … regarding cemeteries so managed as not to yield any pecuniary profit to the owners or managers, do not evidence any intention to change the policy which gave appellant its charter and exempted its property from taxation, but clearly

David Oaks v. Timothy R. Chamberlain, M.D.

76 N.E.3d 941 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2017

that which he contends is adequate, we cannot deny that such a disparity would, nevertheless, be quite relevant to a jury that is charged with determining which of two highly qualified … Such instructions should, for example, clearly define the legal meaning of standard of care; enunciate the principle that a mere difference in views between physicians does Court of Appeals

Darwin Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2014

To avoid waiver, the defendant must establish that fundamental error occurred, which is an error that “ma[de] a fair trial impossible or constitute[d a] clearly blatant violation[ ] of basic and elementary principles of … Here, the record established that Officer Brinker was qualified as a skilled or expert witness based on his extensive experience and training.

Good. v. Western Pulaski County School Corp.

139 Ind. App. 567 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1966

Thompson, was made a party to the action, he disqualified himself, and Honorable Russell Gordon, regular Judge of the 39th Judicial Circuit by appointment of the Supreme Court of Indiana, on March 3, 1962, qualified and served … It is incumbent upon the appellant to rebut this presumption in his brief by clearly showing that the trial court committed serious error which denied the relief to which he was entitled under the law, ...”

Smith v. State

497 N.E.2d 601 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1986

His verified motion for change of judge was filed on December 19, 1984, clearly beyond the ten day period. The motion failed to state reasons why it was untimely. … He argues that the state failed to establish that the witnesses knew the difference between truthtelling and lying.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.E. & H.E. (Minor Children) and D.E. (Father) & D.E. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2012

They were also behind on their immunizations. DCS ensured that the children received the necessary medical treatment. … The children also received the required immunizations.

Kurt Stuhlmacher v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2017

The facts that Stuhlmacher had mental health issues, had attempted suicide in the past, and was prohibited from hunting on the farmer’s property, do not qualify as crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts … In other words, Stuhlmacher has not established that there was any extrajudicial contact with the jury at all.

Thurman v. State

602 N.E.2d 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1992

Even though Thurman's consent to the search of his car did not qualify as an exception to the warrant requirement, the evidence seized therein was nevertheless admissible. … The "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement, as established by Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 LEd.2d 564 (1971) and recently modified by Horton v.

Indianapolis Elks Building Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

145 Ind. App. 522 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 1969

Fraternal organizations are, without question, entitled to property tax exemption if they can otherwise qualify under what we have heretofore stated to be the established procedures used in determining an exempt status, i.e … “Although such interpretation placed upon a statute may not be binding upon the court if such interpretation is clearly incorrect, it is entitled to considerable weight when it is necessary for the court to make an interpretation

Indiana Bell Tel. Co. Inc. v. Boyd

421 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1981

(b) The practice of denying these rights to properly qualified persons by reason of the race, religion, color, sex, handicap, national origin or ancestry of *664 such person is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality … We hold, therefore, that the conduct complained of fails, as a matter of law, to establish an unlawful discriminatory practice under the Indiana Civil Right Law.

JS v. State

843 N.E.2d 1013 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2006

We do not believe that an officer's assumption about an individual's actions, without more, establishes her motivations beyond a reasonable doubt. … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic *1018 and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.