Case law

Kevin Derek Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court misinterpreted the law or if its decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. … Rather, [Riley] simply asserts that Baird could not offer a precise rate of error in the application of established document examination techniques[.]” (Appellee’s Br. at 19.)

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.

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.

Leon H. Tyson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2017

The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will reverse only if the decision is clearly against the logic 2 On January 25, 2017, the parties … We decline to address this question, or whether the card would qualify as a “record[] of a regularly conducted activity,” see Evid.

Arvin North American Automotive v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Services

598 N.E.2d 532 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1992

Is a striking employee required to make an unconditional offer to return to work in order to qualify for unemployment benefits? 3. Was the Review Board's decision supported by the evidence? … While the burden is clearly on the claimants to show that they have been permanently replaced, Jackson, supra, their burden to prove termination is fully satisfied by such a showing.

James Pumphrey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2018

Because post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Stevens v. … Rather, the facts of this case clearly establish that Pumphrey, who had been facing a plethora of serious charges, willingly entered into a beneficial plea agreement with full knowledge of the rights

Jm v. Ma

928 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2010

s grandmother to establish a guardianship over him. Sometime thereafter, M.A. … We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. at 953 .

Farno v. Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, LLC

953 N.E.2d 1253 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2011

[A]t least a portion of the Plaintiffs’ interests are directly related to the present lack of a qualified trustee for the Funds. … As such, these alternative methods were clearly better suited for “handling *1276 the total controversy,” in the words of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee.

Priority Press, Inc. v. Media Methodology

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2013

Even if it did, however, we cannot ignore the qualifier that the doctrine does not apply except “under such circumstances that the defendant’s retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust.” Id. … Thus, Priority has not established a claim for recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Priority has failed to establish a prima facie showing of error.

State of Indiana v. Bobby Walden

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

In reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, we reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … (6) The defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged. (7) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution. (8) The prosecution is untimely brought.

Payne v. State

658 N.E.2d 635 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1995

The arrest records clearly were part of the records under his custody. … Regardless, the record clearly reflects that the November 8, 1993 information included an affi-ant's and a prosecutor's signature.

Shawn Spencer v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2020

Spencer is Not a Sexually Violent Predator per Statute [18] The main issue on appeal is whether Spencer’s two Florida convictions qualify him as an SVP in Indiana.9 The statute defining the term “sexually violent … [23] The plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.5(b)(1)(C) clearly provides that a person is an SVP if they commit the offense of child molesting “as a . . .

Kimberly J. Brook v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2023

Lorazepam’s Status as a Legend Drug [27] Brook next argues that the trial court’s jury instruction for the offense of unlawful possession or use of a legend drug was clearly erroneous. … established law.”

Gregory D. Swagger v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … The statute clearly gives the trial court three options with respect to sanctioning a probationer who has violated his probation terms.

In Re Cg

933 N.E.2d 494 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

Consequently, Ordower, Duran, and Martinez did not qualify as de facto custodians when DCS took custody of C.G. … Dalton testified that if she determines that she is not qualified to work with C.G. on sexual abuse issues, she will refer C.G. to another therapist.

Steven Hagan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2018

Decision shall not be Mar 15 2018, 8:07 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … Gellenbeck was clearly charged with far more than mere supervision—it seems that he was charged with nothing less than helping V.S. to turn her academic and personal lives around, a responsibility

Corey L. Spurlock v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2017

In other words, the offenses of felony-murder and [C]lass A felony conspiracy were each established by the proof of a fact not used to establish the other offense. Id. at 178. … In Spivey, the supreme court determined that the defendant’s “convictions for felony-murder and conspiracy to commit burglary [did] not qualify for relief” under the rules of statutory construction and common law

John Reno v. Dennis O. Hamilton, Cathy A. Hamilton, Stephen Wayne Bell II, Stephanie L. Bell, Stacie L. Bell, Sonia K. Bell-Brenizer (mem. dec.)

102 N.E.3d 353 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2018

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 840. … He argues that “[t]he law in Indiana is that ‘recording does not establish ownership, and whether or not a deed is recorded has no effect on its validity.’”

Marion County Auditor v. Revival Temple Apostolic Church

898 N.E.2d 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2008

The trial court’s declaration that the tax sale was void ab initio clearly intended to require Marion County to refund the repurchase price of the property. … See Ind.Code § 6-1.1-11-1 ("An exemption is a privilege which may be waived by a person who owns tangible property that would qualify for the exemption.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Bogdan T. Mihuti: Layla Cristina Mihuti v. Ciobanu Law, P.C. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Fulp v. Gilliland, 998 N.E.2d 204, 210 (Ind. 2013). … “Whether an item or group of items of personal property qualifies as a household good should be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Id.