Case law

Marriage of Edwards v. Edwards

709 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

The rule clearly provides that the only consequence of not filing a notice of appeal is that other matters may not be filed until the notice of appeal has been filed. … Thus, this Court has required that a written memorial must form the basis for establishing the error or omission to be corrected by the nunc pro tunc order.

In Re the Mental Commitment of Tarpley

566 N.E.2d 71 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1991

The first alternative was clearly the most restrictive. … Nevertheless, it is within the qualified right and prerogative of the individual to refuse such medication.

Green v. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

751 N.E.2d 815 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2001

It is well established that federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims of copyright infringement, see 28 U.S.C. § 1838 (a), and that the Federal Copyright Statute, 17 U.S.C. § 101 , et seq. .... completely … Removal is proper over preempled claims in which Congress clearly manifested an intent to convert state law claims into federal-question-claims.

Demetriese Gunn v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … The instructions clearly tell the jury that they must find all five elements, including bodily injury, in order to convict Gunn.

International Business Machines Corporation v. State of Indiana, acting on behalf of the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2018

Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1709-PL-2006 | September 28, 2018 Page 4 of 32  (i) to provide efficient, accurate and timely eligibility determinations for individuals and families who qualify … Accordingly, as the supreme court ultimately and decidedly established the issue of material breach, it remanded for the calculation of the parties’ damages.

Stacy Knighten v. East Chicago Housing Authority Individually and d/b/a West Calumet Complex, Davis Security Service, LLC, and Donnell Caldwell

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2014

ECHA’s motion for summary judgment asserted statutory immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. … Here, Caldwell was clearly on a mission of his own when the injury occurred.

Calvin McKeller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2018

In this review, findings of fact are accepted unless they are clearly erroneous, and no deference is accorded to conclusions of law. Id. … In that context, a panel of this Court held: “Although the State’s instruction does not qualify the participation language, any error was harmless due to the strong evidence of appellant’s guilt.”

Kozacik v. Faas

143 Ind. App. 557 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1968

Kozacik, defendant below, was-the duly named, qualified, and acting executor under said will, and was the prime benefici *559 ary. … Testimony by appellant on cross examination relative to the burial place of the testatrix clearly establishes the fact that her deceased husband in question was buried in St. Mary’s Cemetery in Chicago, Illinois.

Sue Williams, Linda Wood, and Claude-Wood, as the Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Rachel A. Wood v. Indiana Department of Correction, Corizon, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2020

Lupus is a “systemic autoimmune disease that occurs when your body’s immune system attacks your own tissues and organs.” … These elementary principles establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration.

In the Matter of: N.S. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and C.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2016

We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. Id. … Initially, we note that “multiple” means “more than one,” meaning that two incidents would qualify as multiple incidents.

Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Scoles

435 N.E.2d 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 1982

In support of this argument SIGECO contends that all of the evidence established that Clark did stop before contact with Scoles. … This altered condition, clearly understood by Clark and Scoles alike, required Clark to stop, and permitted Scoles to walk back and forth across the road.

Pollard v. State

439 N.E.2d 177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1982

Shultz established that driving does invoke the implied consent statute even though, as here, no request for a test is made. Ind. … This, coupled with other descriptive evidence of Pollard’s actions, clearly is sufficient evidence of intoxication. (B) Causation.

Ronald F. Graham v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2014, 10:10 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … At one point, Officer Jones clearly observed Graham’s face. The chase ended when Graham lost control of his vehicle, which entered a field, went airborne, and landed out of view.

Court View Centre, LLC v. Witt

753 N.E.2d 75 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2001

"If an old building burns to the ground, the actual value is commonly established by reference to its fair market value less the value of the land on which the building sits." Id. at 353 . … Clearly, Kalka's opinion was based almost entirely upon guesswork. As such, Kal-ka's testimony lacked a proper foundation and was properly excluded by the trial court.

Dion Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

A trial court abuses its Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-542 | August 16, 2018 Page 4 of 10  discretion by ruling in a way clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and … monitoring is one of the negative consequences for failing to successfully complete a drug court program); Meadows, 2 N.E.3d at 792–94 (noting that deferral programs provide “an opportunity for those qualified

Alexander v. PSB Lending Corp.

800 N.E.2d 984 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2003

Independent Realty originated the second mortgage loans and charged the alleged excessive origination fee directly from the Drakes and Simms, respectively, a personal stake and potential injury caused by those Defendants is clearly … We do not determine if the April 10, 2002, letter qualified as a written interpretation as contemplated by the statute, or if the letter's substantive conclusions regarding the IUCCC were accurate.

David E. Proffitt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2018

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.

Monica Dycus v. State of Indiana

90 N.E.3d 1215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and 2 Pirtle v. … Additionally, documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records. Id. at 311, n.1.

Smith v. Indiana State Board of Health

158 Ind. App. 445 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1973

Richardson was selected and qualified as Special Judge. … We have hereinabove held that this first contempt action was civil in nature and the authorities cited herein establish that damages or fines must be compensatory and supported by substantial evidence.

In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M.

979 N.E.2d 174 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2012

This Court should “nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary.” Bd. of Comm’rs of the County of Howard v. … AOPA affords judicial relief where an agency action is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; *182 (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;