Case law

Kirby v. State

774 N.E.2d 523 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2002

The determination of whether a witness qualifies for the exemption found in clause (3) is within the trial court’s discretion and is subject to review for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 256-257. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating *540 evidence is both significant and clearly-supported by the record.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Ic.G. and Ib.G. (Minor Children) and M.G. (Mother) and B.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2017

Standard of Review [12] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights proceedings is well established. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229–30.

Wurster v. State

708 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1999

The statute clearly imposes the duty on the association as a separate entity — not on the officers or members of the association. Day, 341 N.E.2d at 211-12 . … Venue must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may be established by circumstantial evidence. Buzzard v. State, 669 N.E.2d 996, 997 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

Williams v. State

895 N.E.2d 377 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2008

9(G)(1), said information shall be omitted [or redacted] from the filed document and set forth on a separate accompanying document on light green paper conspicuously marked “Not For Public Access” or “Confidential” and clearly … Rather, we will adhere to the standard that we establish today in Scott .

Marc M. Lindsey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 02 2014, 9:19 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … to limit his sentence to a term of one year, which is below the advisory sentence for a Class D felony.1 Furthermore, the record indicates that Lindsey had a substantial criminal history and, as a result, he did not qualify

Boston v. State

947 N.E.2d 436 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2011

Motion to Suppress Boston also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood test results because the State failed to establish a proper foundation. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Cochran v. State, 843 N.E.2d 980, 982-83 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied.

United of Omaha v. Hieber

698 N.E.2d 869 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1998

United argues that the Omaha I decision conclusively established that the only persons entitled to assert detrimental reliance on SPDs are plan participants, not beneficiaries. … State courts have jurisdiction only in suits filed according to § 1132(a)(1)(B) or in suits brought by the State to enforce qualified medical child support orders. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e)(1).

F. J. v. State

78 Ind. Dec. 454 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1980

Later testimony suggests F.J. was possibly 20 pounds underweight, although as noted earlier her usual weight was never established, nor can we glean from the evidence any clear indication of whether there was a sudden recent … It was apparently a form notice used in dissolution of marriage proceedings, and clearly not effective notice of a hearing on commitment for mental illness. Moreover, despite the fact F.

Hicks v. Fielman

421 N.E.2d 716 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1981

It was possible prior to 1973 to qualify alimony payments under section 71(a)(1) of the IRC; by enacting § 10(a), the Legislature made it possible to continue doing so. … Finally, the term "maintenance" as used in the dissolution decree clearly refers to child support.

Thomas Spicer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2019

On appeal, “a defendant claiming that he was denied his right to allocution carries a strong burden in establishing his claim.” Id. at 429. … However, our supreme court has held that a young age does not “automatically” qualify as a significant mitigator. Gross v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1141 n.4 (Ind. 2002).

Claudette Branson v. Malcolm D. Branson, II (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2016

the trial court concluded that “[i]t should deviate slightly in favor of the Wife” based on “the economic circumstances of the parties including the fact that the Wife is three (3) years away from qualifying … Even after Wife filed the petition to dissolve the marriage, the evidence establishes that Husband alone made payments on the marital debt.

Most Reverend Noll v. Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co.

117 Ind. App. 554 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1946

directions for the benefit of all of the orphans of said county; that the Board of Commissioners of Allen County took over the institution known *560 as the Allen County Orphans’ Home; and that appellee is the only one qualified … Such postponement can only arise from language used which clearly and definitely destroys the vested estate — language which will force the mind to such conclusion.”

Allen L. Grogg v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2020

App. 2006), we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the stun gun in question was a deadly weapon that was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury when the evidence established … “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom

Michael McCoy v. Douglas McCoy

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2026

“This Court will only disturb a trial court’s ruling if it amounts to an abuse of discretion, meaning the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or it is a … Evidence Rule 703 does not independently establish the admissibility of the emails themselves—that basis is addressed in Section I.

Garage Doors of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Morton

682 N.E.2d 1296 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1997

Garage Doors raises numerous issues for our review, which we combine and restate as: 1) whether the master commissioner was properly qualified and had the authority to enter a final appealable order; 2) whether the court … This court has established guidelines for determining when a claim is frivolous, unreasonable or groundless for purposes of this statute.

S & S Enterprises v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC

799 N.E.2d 18 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

Bona Fide Purchaser To qualify as a bona fide purchaser, one has to purchase in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the outstanding rights of others. Keybank Nat. Ass'n v. … Further, Marathon presented evidence to establish a mutual mistake.

Kurtis L. Shorter v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law … [21] As far back as 1948, the United States Supreme Court has held that If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor,

SECO CHEMICALS, INC., ETC. v. Stewart

169 Ind. App. 624 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1976

On an appeal from a trial to the court, we may not reverse the trial court’s findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52 (A). … The parties cite Indiana cases establishing when our courts must enforce a liquidated damages clause and when a discharged employee must mitigate damages.

Z.T. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2018

shall not be Dec 05 2018, 9:07 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … To qualify as a fundamental error, it must be so prejudicial to the rights of the party that fair proceedings are impossible. Id.

Demming v. Underwood

943 N.E.2d 878 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2011

Underwood clearly would have breached the fiduciary duties arising out of that relationship by purchasing the Properties for herself without informing Demming that Mrs. Morris was entertaining offers. See Bopp v. … person with whom the licensee is working unless the licensee is assisting that person as a customer without compensation, there is no requirement that an individual compensate a licensee for his or her services in order to qualify