Case law

D.G.B. v. State

833 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2005

The supreme court went on to state that under less stressful events, such a lengthy time period might not qualify for the excited utterance exception. Hammon, 829 N.E.2d at 449; see, e.g., Davenport v. … If the statement is taken pursuant to established procedures, either the subjective motivation of the individual taking the statement or the objectively evaluated purpose of the procedure is sufficient. Id. at 456 .

D.S.I. v. Natare Corp.

742 N.E.2d 15 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2000

Applying the above standard, the court concluded that the plaintiffs “easily” qualified as prevailing parties. Id. at 746. … In connection with the litigation against Na-tare, Mart clearly was the one who decided what actions to undertake.

Austin M. Scholl v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2014

Only one of those characteristics is necessary to qualify a witness as an expert. Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905. It is within the trial court’s discretion to decide whether a witness qualifies as an expert witness. … The trial court properly found that Hern qualified as an expert witness.

Brook v. St. John's Hickey Mem. Hosp.

368 N.E.2d 264 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1977

conform to the evidence. [1] Also the Brooks have waived their objection that the instruction was unclear and confusing to the jury by their failure to tender another instruction which would have enabled the jury to more clearly … There is evidence that a qualified X-ray technician was always present when Dr. Fischer made an injection of contrast medium into a patient prior to the taking of an X-ray.

Mayberry v. State

605 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

The record indicates that Lucille qualifies for some type of low cost housing ($33.00 a month). Added to this is the fact that Lucille has high blood pressure, and may not be in good health. … Clearly, Thelma was incapable of taking care of herself and required the assistance of another.

Dixson v. State

865 N.E.2d 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2007

Lane faced the possibility of ninety-three years in prison if convicted of these charges. 3 After again speaking with Dixson in jail, Lane originally refused to testify against Dixson despite being offered use immunity. … At trial, this is certainly not what the State wished to establish; the State sought to establish that Dixson was neither at home on the night of the murder nor cheating on his wife but instead at the FAC building. 7 .

Timothy Kendrick v. Angela Kendrick

44 N.E.3d 721 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the -facts and circumstances before the court,- or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law or disregards -evidence … beneficiary may not assign any payment.” [17] Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), pension benefits may be assigned or alienated from, the plan participant only if the order alienating the benefit is a qualified

Teresa A. Houser, Personal Rep. of the Est. of Anonymous Physician v. Stacy Kaufman, C.K., and Brent Kaufman Teresa A. Houser, Personal Rep. v. Stacy Kaufman

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2012

Stacy clearly made an argument based upon Martin and its progeny to the trial court and repeats that argument on appeal. … The doctor had given the patient immunizations that the doctor knew repeatedly caused the patient to lose consciousness, but the doctor failed to monitor the patient for a sufficient amount of time before permitting him

Justus v. Justus

581 N.E.2d 1265 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1991

The court qualified its holding saying: However, such an agreement is not binding upon the court. … Subsection (c) establishes a rebuttable presumption that an equal division of the marital property is just and reasonable.

Donald B. Hall v. Beverly J. Hall

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 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 FILED … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Id.

Matter of Estate of Banko

602 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1992

The National City Bank of Evansville was appointed, qualified and acted as personal representative. On July 17, 1990, the Bank as personal representative, filed its inventory of probate assets. … A probate court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Matherly v. Matherly (1983), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 220, 221 .

Burkhart v. Simms, Admr.

115 Ind. App. 576 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1945

Simms was duly appointed and qualified as Administrator of the estate of James M. … Third, an examination of the evidence as contained in the record fails to disclose any evidence which tends to establish the fact that the appellant, Grace B.

Louis K. Rose v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2020

If they’re appointed a PD and I say a hundred dollars, that means there’s a Felony charge pending[,] and they qualify for a PD. … [13] To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that has been procedurally defaulted, a defendant must establish the grounds for the prosecutorial misconduct, and he must also establish that the

Christopher E. Wooten v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited FILED before any court except for the Feb 12 2013, 8:49 am purpose of establishing … indicates that the legislature knows how to use qualifiers if it wants to, but has chosen not to do so when it comes to employees of school corporations.

A.M. v. D.R. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2019

’s welfare; (3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age; (4) whether the child has established … Again, Mother points to L.R.’s alleged criminal history in support of her argument that L.R. does not qualify as a “responsible household family member.”7 This, too, 6 Mother’s allegations

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2018

“The purpose of a jury instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and … Thus, even if Jones’s claim that she was only negligent did not qualify as a “defense” under Springer, it was at least a “theory” that could have led to her acquittal.

Kathryne Tillett v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2025

Henderson filed an evaluation concluding that Tillett was capable of assisting in her defense, was able to participate in her own defense, had a basic understanding of the court proceedings, and was “clearly … The facts establish that Tillet digitally penetrated her own daughters, then ages seven and three, on many occasions, sometimes in the presence of the other child. E.W.

Guedelhofer v. Ernsting

23 Ind. App. 188 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1899

If we clearly understand the theory of the complaint, appellee plants his right of recovery upon two basic propositions: (1) That appellant was negligent in failing to provide a guard to be adjusted over the revolving knives … This finding by the general verdict must stand, unless facts are affirmatively established by the special findings which are so antagonistic to the facts established by the general verdict that the two can not be reconciled

Indiana State Teachers Ass'n v. Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis

679 N.E.2d 933 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 6, 1997

The purpose of Article IV, § 19 is to establish a check on the exercise of legislative power. … The mere fact that no other county presently qualifies does not render the Act unconstitutional.” Id. (citations omitted).

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2025

Accordingly, ACE concluded “NIPSCO neither qualifies as an additional [insured] under the policy nor are the allegations made against NIPSCO covered by the . . . policy.” Id. … The trial court did not clearly err. 5.