Case law

Charles P. White v. State of Indiana

25 N.E.3d 107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2014

Pursuant to Indiana Code section 3-5-5-0.5, White’s son does qualify as immediate family. … To establish a post-conviction claim alleging violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish the two components set forth in Strickland v.

Mario L. Sims v. Emily Taylor (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2018

The Dugan court held that these comments qualified for consideration as defamation per se because they were clearly “statements imputing criminal conduct or occupational misconduct.” Id. at 187. … A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law. Id.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.

45 N.E.3d 483 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2015

Vectren evaluated several alternative compliance technologies that would allow the Brown, Culley, and Warrick units to comply with pollution limits established- in the MATS rule). NOV; and NPDES.... … An order from the Commission is presumed valid unless the contrary is clearly apparent. Citizens Action Coal. of Ind., Inc. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv.

Marcus Lee McCain v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2020

However, the State argued that this did not matter because voluntary manslaughter was “still a qualifying offense” under Section 35-50-2-11(b). Id. at 164. … The judge’s finding that the killing was “cold-blooded” is clearly at odds with the jury’s finding that the killing was done in sudden heat.

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman

180 Ind. App. 33 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1979

This clearly reflects the assumption that prescription drugs will only be used under some supervision of a doctor. … The Patient Warning is clearly another matter, however.

Holmes v. ACandS, Inc.

709 N.E.2d 36 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1999

Clearly, at the time of Henry’s death, he might have maintained a personal injury action against the Asbestos Defendants; Henry lived little more than a month following the diagnosis of his cancer. … Therefore, if the plaintiff could establish that the cause of the disease was discovered within two years of filing the wrongful death action, it would not be barred.

In the Custody of: T.G. (Minor Child) and by J.D. (Father) v. M.G. and D.G., and Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2019

While there is no doubt that Maternal Grandfather has been present for much of Child’s life, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Maternal Grandfather had been Child’s primary caregiver … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1906 | March 7, 2019 Page 17 of 18 [24] In short, we conclude that to establish de facto custodian status, the evidence must establish more than simply

Patricia Mowery and Harold R. Mowery, Jr. v. Arron L. Hofmeister, Individually and as Employee/Agent of Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, and Marathon Petroleum Co., LP

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 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. … A strict, literal application of the qualifying phrase “appropriately preserved during trial ” in Rule 59(A) would preclude a party from presenting an appellate challenge of insufficient evidence despite

Banks v. State

841 N.E.2d 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2006

Upon notification the defendant does not qualify for Tippecanoe County Community Corrections or is rejected he will be transported to the Indiana Department of Corrections to serve his executed sentence. … When a trial court fails to find a mitigator clearly supported by the record, however, a reasonable belief arises that the trial court improperly overlooked that factor. Id.

City of Kokomo v. Kern

852 N.E.2d 623 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2006

"[The Court's] responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government; this does not require a grant of immunity for employee grievances not afforded by the … I also agree that they have clearly set forth the applicable law.

In Re the Marriage of: Jeffrey E. Nelson v. Julie A. Nelson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2020

And when Husband offered expert testimony regarding his oil interests, the trial court found that Husband’s witness did not qualify as an expert and excluded his testimony. … Husband asserts “that the payments to Husband clearly predated the parties’ marriage” in 2012. Appellant’s Br. at 31.

In the Matter of the Expungement of J.S.: State of Indiana v. J.S.

48 N.E.3d 356 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2015

to lower the probability and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles throughout the United States, and to ensure that persons responsible for driving commercial motor vehicles are qualified … Although Indiana law does not deny Hand the issuance of a restricted CDL, the BMV has established that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 16A04-1503-MI-89 | December 28, 2015 Page 16 of 22

In re the Adoption of S.M.M., T.M.S. v. K.L.M. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2016

Factual findings are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them and a judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and the conclusions … This court has previously defined “unfit” as “[u]nsuitable; not adopted or qualified for a particular use or service” or “[m]orally unqualified; incompetent.”

Anthony Gibson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2018

8:48 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … After an extensive review of the trial transcript, we find no clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process.

Eric M. Kyner v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

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. … We accept the post- conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but accord 3 conclusions of law no deference. Johnson, 832 N.E.2d at 992.

Brandon Mockbee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2017

Specifically, he argues that his prior convictions are too old and not “serious enough to qualify as prior convictions for purposes of Indiana’s habitual offender statute.” Appellant’s Br. at 22. … [22] Similarly, “[t]o establish standing pursuant to Article 1, Section 11, our supreme court has stated that ‘a defendant must establish ownership, control, possession, or interest in the premises searched

Tony Lawrence Richey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2023

Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Richey had committed an SVF-qualifying offense; and 3. … “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law.” Id.

The Estate of Rose Graves v. Anonymous Nursing Home

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2012

Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited May 30 2012, 8:44 am before any court except for the purpose of establishing … On June 11, 2009, the IDOI reversed its earlier determination and found that the Nursing Home was, in fact, a qualified provider under the Act.

McDowell v. North

24 Ind. App. 435 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1899

Appellee qualified as his administrator, is such administrator, and received said notes, accounts, and books, as such, from decedent’s family. … While the evidence is voluminous, we have examined it as to the points raised, and are clearly satisfied that there is evidence in the record upon which the court could rest its several findings.

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

131 Ind. App. 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1961

Appellant vigorously contends that the court, in so adjudicating for appellee, abused its discretion and that its conclusion is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … She also qualified the statement by saying appellee did not make enough money to support *448 her “the way I was accustomed to living.” How or in what way she was accustomed to living is not disclosed by the evidence.