Case law

J.J. v. State

858 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2006

The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind.2004); Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5). … In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. 6 Id.

K.M.K. v. A.K.

908 N.E.2d 658 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2009

Price, a licensed Indiana attorney, was hired by Father to *661 assist him in establishing paternity and gaining legal custody of A.M.K. … Price attached a proposed order establishing paternity and granting Father temporary custody pursuant to the paternity petition.

Jason T. Myers v. Thomas D. Maxson Amy L. Hutchison Bruce W. Graham and Trueblood & Graham (In their Official and Individual Capacities) (mem. dec.)

51 N.E.3d 1267 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2016

When the moving party-asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of fact … Purdue Univ., 985 N.E.2d 35, 52-54 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (observing that communication with the entities and individuals in a case involving the ITCA without apparent regard to the ITCA’s notice requirement cannot qualify as

Carter v. Carolina Tobacco Co., Inc.

873 N.E.2d 611 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2007

Indiana’s Qualifying Statute is codified at Indiana Code section 24-3-3-1 et seq. … Roger Cigarettes in Indiana To comply with the Qualifying Statutes enacted by the Settling States in April 2000, CTC established an escrow account with the Bank of America.

Z.M. v. Marion County Department of Child Services

911 N.E.2d 69 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2009

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … By its own terms, In re E.E.S. characterizes itself as an anomaly in the established case law.

Courter v. Fugitt

714 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1999

The motion for attorney’s fees must be filed not more than thirty days after entry of judgment, and the motion “must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney … A strict construction of the statute clearly contemplates that a qualified settlement offer can be made only to a party to the action.

Thomas J Herr v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2023

“Statutes come before us ‘clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.’” Id. (quoting Zoeller v. Sweeney, 19 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2014)). … “Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 1377-78 (1964). The U.S.

Gabbard v. Dennis

821 N.E.2d 441 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2005

The attached affidavit of Gabbard's counsel stated that pursuant to the qualified settlement offer statute, he was averring that the fees "greatly exceed[ed] one-thousand *444 dollars ($1,000.00)" in order "to establish the … The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror's attorney establishing the amount of the attorney's fees and other costs and expenses incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified settlement

Bible Institute Colportage Ass'n v. St. Joseph B. & T. Co.

118 Ind. App. 592 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1947

to establish' a charitable trust. … Clearly, there could be no pastor, nor *607 any attendants of a church which had passed out of existence.

In re the Paternity & Maternity of Infant R.

922 N.E.2d 59 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2010

Clearly, this would involve more than simply an affidavit or a stipulation between the affected parties. … Because we have found equitable relief to be appropriate, we need not address contentions with regard to the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. I. § 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

In the Matter of Ra.S., Roy.S., and Rod.S. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and R.S. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2019

That the child has had no immunizations. 11. … That the child was behind on immunizations. 11.

Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital

415 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1981

In light of the remaining assertions in the Whitakers’ “verified objection,” there was no competent evidence presented to establish that Dr. Tutunji and Associates were not qualified health care providers. … Before a statute will be declared repugnant to the Constitutions its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent...

City of Indianapolis v. Robinson

427 N.E.2d 902 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1981

Since Ulrich was particularly well qualified to render an opinion on the speed of an airborne object, and was the only witness on this critical issue, we believe the exclusion of his testimony was clearly an abuse of discretion … The above evidence clearly supports the measurements incorporated into the hypothetical questions.

The Lake of the Woods of Marshall County Conservancy District v. Remonstrators Against Establishment of the Conservancy District

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2026

The Petitioners now appeal and present four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the court clearly erred when it dismissed the petition to establish the District. … If a given freeholder qualifies as set forth in this section for at least two (2) freeholds, the freeholder’s signature shall be counted for each freehold.

Schultz v. LaBine

428 N.E.2d 1284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1981

Clearly, the constitution does not require us to transform the possibility of further prosecution in this or another jurisdiction into a source of absolute protected silence on the part of the witness. … excluding the answers thus elicited, in any subsequent criminal case. * * * * * * It exempts no one from the consequences of a crime which he may have committed, but only from the necessity of himself producing the evidence to establish

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington

768 N.E.2d 490 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2002

Before an ordinance will be declared repugnant to the Constitution, its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent. Id. … The City argues that through its zoning power it has the right to establish residential zones. It contends that "family composition rules are essential" to zoning for residential zones. Appellee's Brief at 10.

Winona Memorial Hospital, Ltd. Partnership v. Kuester

737 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2000

If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial interpretation is inappropriate and the courts will adopt the meaning clearly expressed. … Credentialing, therefore, is neither clearly within the Act nor outside of it. For this reason, we hold that the Act is ambiguous with regard to whether the physician credentialing process is included within its ambit.

John D. May v. Erik C. Allen (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or if the decision is contrary to law. Garrett v. … Specifically, May says the trial court erred in determining Judge Allen was immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County

994 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2013

During the trial, Rollett stipulated that the camps do not qualify for subdivision pursuant to the current standards set forth in the VCC. … We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Tyler Flota v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

The State moved for the trial court to grant Flota immunity. The court granted Flota immunity and advised him that he must answer questions and provide items that are requested. … Flota was granted immunity and ordered by the court to testify under a subpoena.