Case law

Dible v. City of Lafayette

678 N.E.2d 1271 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1997

The special judge who presided over this case qualified and assumed jurisdiction on August 9,1994. … That Dible has established the first, second, and fourth requirements listed above cannot be seriously disputed.

In the Matter of: M.M. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, M.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

We will reverse a CHINS determination only of it was clearly erroneous. Id. … A decision is clearly erroneous if the facts do not support the findings or if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

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.

Menard, Inc. v. Marilyn K. Terew

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2023

Evidence Rule 702(a) provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific … We will vacate an award of damages when it is not rationally related and so great as to clearly indicate that the jury was motivated by prejudice, passion, or partiality or considered an improper element.

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

Pearson v. Hahn

170 Ind. App. 361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1976

On July 30,1971, Barton (one of Fred’s ex-partners) qualified as executor of Fred’s estate. On January 29, 1973, Bank was appointed administrator d/b/n following Barton’s resignation. … of the deceased partner. *372 *371 Before we state our precise holding in this case, we think it important to state clearly when we do not hold.

Brandon T. Smith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2019

65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 10 2019, 5:48 am court except for the purpose of establishing … [15] It is true that a confession is inadmissible if obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind. 1987).

Sigler v. State

700 N.E.2d 809 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1998

It follows that Sigler has failed to establish that the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to the conclusion that the State denied him due process through the knowing use of perjured testimony. Affirmed. … The information which Sigler sought was clearly material to the jury's determination of his guilt, as information about Williams' possible motives in testifying related directly to her credibility.

Quinn v. Threlkel

858 N.E.2d 665 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2006

Elaine evidently qualified for and accepted financial aid for the 2005-06 school year in the form of scholarships, grants, student loans, and work-study. … It clearly wanted "to avoid weekly variations in the order," which is precisely what the trial court's current order does not avoid.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017

Thomas also points out that [t]here was no showing by a qualified witness that the record was made at or near the time, or from information transmitted by someone with … It is an abuse of discretion if the trial court’s decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Grove v. State

449 N.E.2d 1122 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1983

Grove had testified in his own behalf, and these witnesses were called to establish his bad reputation. … The trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from facts established either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Turpin v.

Timothy M. Schieve v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2018

Because Schieve has waived appellate review of this argument, he must establish fundamental error, which is only available in egregious circumstances. See Absher v. … To qualify as fundamental error, the “‘error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible’” and must “‘constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm

Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Carter

854 N.E.2d 853 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2006

The trial court's judgment will be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. … In this Circuit, the right clearly covers medical records and communications.

The Estate of Gary Pfafman v. Lori Lancaster, Individually, and as Guardian of the Estate of Kole Craig

67 N.E.3d 1150 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2017

The instruction booklets for the de-icers stated in relevant part that, when installing the de-icers, “a qualified electrician [shall] install a properly grounded receptacle outlet” to the heater. Id. at 249. … The crux of the issue on appeal is whether the jury’s verdict is clearly erroneous as contrary to or not supported by the evidence.

Mallory Stout v. Tanner Knotts

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2023

Bridges (“Judge Bridges”) was selected and qualified to sit as special judge in this case. … Judge Bridges clearly expressed disdain, not only for the type of relief Stout was seeking, but for the gender he believed most often sought this type of relief.

Mitchell Tickle, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2020

Reversal of a trial court’s decision to admit evidence is appropriate only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. … would suffer extreme emotional distress should she be forced to testify in person; accordingly, the trial court erred when it ruled that P.T. was qualified under the protected person statute to have her statements

Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. v. Elizabeth Bridgewater o/b/o Alyssa Bridgewater

990 N.E.2d 29 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2013

However, the Court clearly stated that its decision applied only to the type of case before it — “an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her.” … See Ind.Code § 22-9-1-3(m) (" 'Public accommodation’ means any establishment that caters or offers its services or facilities or goods to the general public").

Ricci Davis v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2019

In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. … Under the categorical approach, a court assesses whether a crime qualifies as a violent felony “in terms of how the law defines the offense and not in terms of how an individual

Butler Ex Rel. Estate of Butler v. Kokomo Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc.

744 N.E.2d 1041 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2001

Lester and other physicians who were qualified healthcare providers were liable for the damage sustained by Alice as a result of the stroke. … "An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and civreum-stances before the court."

Miller v. Vanderburgh County

610 N.E.2d 858 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1993

Neither is Indiana immune from this senseless violence. … Clearly, courthouse security deputies must be on their toes and stay there. 4 .