Case law

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Mar 15 2013, 9:14 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … We may set aside agency findings of fact only when we determine, after a review of the entire record, that the agency’s decision clearly “lacks a reasonably sound basis of evidentiary support.”

Dwayne E. Gray v. Chase Home Finance, LLC.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

But none of these exhibits were authenticated, and Gray did not establish their admissibility through affidavit. Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper evidence under Trial Rule 56. … “An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Fleming v.

Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners v. City of Carmel, Indiana

85 N.E.3d 926 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2017

We set aside findings and judgments only when they are clearly erroneous. Id. As always, we review questions of law de novo. Id. … circumstances under which a municipality is required to provide fire protection); 36-8-13-3 (listing different ways a township can satisfy its fire-protection responsibility); 22-12-1-18.7 (1999) (defining “qualified

Edward M. Hampton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 31 2020, 9:54 am court except for the purpose of establishing … The State agreed with his request “with the exception of [Hampton’s] qualifying impeachable convictions.” Id. at 6.

Ronnell Roberts v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 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. … The State established that Ivanyo was an experienced chemist, qualified to test the substances and testify concerning her findings.

Beach v. Beach

642 N.E.2d 269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1994

The rendering-registry method clearly contemplates an already existing support order. … Third, competent evidence must be presented establishing the validity of the claim.

Curry v. Curry

58 Ind. App. 567 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1914

The testator, however, saw fit to expressly qualify and limit said words by immediately following them with the words: “subject nevertheless to the following- directions, conditions, restrictions and limitations, viz.” … It is true, as appellants contend, that the rule is thoroughly established by the decided cases that, “where an estate is given to a person generally, or indefinitely, with a power of dis *579 position, it carries a fee;

Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Martin

741 N.E.2d 757 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2000

Clearly, Luers was violating the court’s preliminary injunction by failing to allow Martin to be part of the varsity team. Once a high school joins the IHSAA, it agrees to be bound by its rules. … Although such a rationale might be viewed as impermissibly punitive in nature, we hold that it clearly carried a coercive message to the IHSAA.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Dyer

965 N.E.2d 762 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

All facts established by the designated evidence, and all reasonable inferences from them, are to be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Naugle v. Beech Grove City Sch., 864 N.E.2d 1058, 1062 (Ind.2007). … According to HUD, “The Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure allows a mortgagor in default, who does not qualify for any other HUD Loss Mitigation option, to sign the house back over to the mortgage company.

B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Co.

943 N.E.2d 917 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2011

In our view, the common enemy doctrine does not permit the creation of a wetland because that type of action simply does not qualify as “water diversion.” … B *928 & B presented sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief establishing that LEL undertook a duty and breached that duty by not stopping the propagation of wetland species that culminated in the establishment of the wetlands

Watt v. State

412 N.E.2d 90 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1980

Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 876 (1974). … In fact, clearly the marijuana in the wood box would not be visible.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.S., N.S., and M.S. and A.S. and D.F., and J.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2012

The trial court’s judgment will be set 5 aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … For the most part, Mother cites her own self-serving testimony from the termination hearing in support of her contention, while occasionally citing testimony by others that is qualified by other testimony.

Weisman v. Hopf-Himsel, Inc.

535 N.E.2d 1222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1989

Mravec (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 29, 33 , 440 N.E.2d 600, 605 , (Invoices are admissible into evidence if they qualify as business records.); Marquis Const. Co. v. … Thus, to prevail on their contention that the damage award should be modified, the Weismans must show that the award was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Davis, 501 N.E.2d at 1108 .

Ross Nifong d/b/a Ross Nifong Farms and Ross Nifong Farms, LLC v. Joseph R. Brown d/b/a Joe Brown Drilling Contractor (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2017

A second test performed in December, established that the flow had further decreased to 500 gallons of water per minute. … The trial court clearly credited Brown’s testimony over the testimony given by Nifong and Chad, and we will defer to that determination.

Andrew Kliman v. Mutual Wealth Management Group, Trustee Marjorie L. Kliman Christine E. Kliman and Carol L. Kliman (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 2018

Kliman” or “Settlor”) established the Trust with the Trustee. … We review such judgments under our clearly erroneous standard.

Eric Manual Montgomery v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2024

[9] Here, we take counsel from two well-established principles: stare decisis and legislative acquiescence. … Noting the phrase “mental disability or deficiency” is qualified by the resultant inability to give consent, the meaning has been expanded for purposes of [the rape and criminal

Marques Ridley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2017

When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Id. … Her testimony established the laboratory’s “process or system.” See Ind. Evid. R. 901(b).

City of Fishers, Indiana v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2025

The Dague Court concluded the “broad subject” of Public Law 141 was “the construction, operation and jurisdiction of Indiana courts,” so it was not “clearly unreasonable to conclude that the Product Liability Act should … Section 44 was special because it not only excluded “all other groups that ordinarily qualify for exemptions,” but it also excluded “fraternities that are not connected with Indiana University.”

Commitment of GPH v. Giles

578 N.E.2d 729 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1991

Giles believes GPH would be able to think more clearly, would function better, and would require less restrictive care. Without the medicine, Dr. … However, we must presume that the statute is valid and uphold it, unless it is clearly unconstitutional. Van Sant v. State (1988), Ind.App., 523 N.E.2d 229, 233 .

In the Matter of: L.T. And S.T. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2020

This court will reverse only where the trial court’s discretion is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … In Matter of Eq.W., 214 N.E.3d 1201, 1210 (Ind. 2019), our supreme court agreed with the general proposition that past acts by parents in CHINS proceedings can be relevant, but qualified this practice to