Case law

Justin Ross Tomlinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 27 2020, 8:54 am court except for the purpose of establishing … We review the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we will reverse the trial court’s decision only when its action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

Katyun Marsh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 08 2015, 10:33 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, … “If a statement involves hearsay within hearsay . . . the statement may still be admitted if each layer of hearsay qualifies under an exception to the hearsay rule.”

Baller Ex Rel. Baller v. Corle

490 N.E.2d 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1986

Murray had established sufficient credentials for the rendering of his opinion as to the objective consideration of behavior expected of a typical seven-year-old. … Even assuming that Murray qualified as an expert on child behavior because of his nineteen years of experience in grade schools, the majority admits that the information contained in Murray's deposition was not beyond the

The City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, the Mayor of the City of Lawrenceburg in his official capacity v. Franklin County, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2019

The parties disagree as to whether Lawrenceburg’s argument that the Agreement is void by statute qualifies as the affirmative defense of illegality. … [31] Second, not only can this result not be what the legislature intended, but it is clearly not what Lawrenceburg intended, either.

In the Matter of J.S. and M.S. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and P.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Stepfather) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 2019

We will set aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous and a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. … It is difficult to see how this would not have qualified as one of those situations.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2020

Hillman does not dispute that he qualified as a serious violent felon; rather, Hillman contends that he did not knowingly or intentionally possess the rifle. … The PC Court’s denial of Hillman’s petition for PCR is not clearly erroneous.

Book v. State

880 N.E.2d 1240 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2008

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … (Ind.1998), our Supreme Court held that a murder defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter because the crying of the five-month-old victim did not constitute the provocation necessary to qualify

Drs v. Rsh

412 N.E.2d 1257 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1980

The trial court's judgment is not reversed unless it 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." … It is one that is to be established.

Todd v. Ehresman

132 Ind. App. 440 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1961

The Purdue National Bank of Lafayette was duly appointed and qualified as Administrator of decedent’s estate. … On the other hand, we hold that they not only may, but that it is clearly their duty to do so, in all proper cases.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Harris

985 N.E.2d 804 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for Trial Rule 60(B) relief. In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind.2010). … An abuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous, that is, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

Cheryl Evans v. Richard Hawksworth, Town of Dune Acres (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2016

We disagree, as no specific words or form are required and Evans clearly alleged Hawksworth unlawfully holds a position as Town Council member. … App. 1980) (holding the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory judgment alleging defendant was not qualified to hold office because declaratory judgment

JD v. State

841 N.E.2d 204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2006

With respect to the first step, a person's conviction for making unreasonable noise based solely upon his loud speaking during a police investigation qualifies as the restriction of an expressive activity. … Clearly, the magnitude of impairment to the Article 1, Section 9 right to expression cannot be characterized as "slight" in this case, as the State's restriction of J.D.'

Garrett v. City of Bloomington

478 N.E.2d 89 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 1985

Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, (2nd Cir.1972) 456 F.2d 1339 , the court set forth compelling policy reasons for the good faith standard: "Having ruled against immunity, we must not be unmindful … the governmental entity prevailing as defendant, if it finds that plaintiff: (1) brought the action on a claim which is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; (2) continued to litigate the action after plaintiff's claim clearly

Pruden v. Trabits

175 Ind. App. 219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1977

is granted from the judge or county within the prescribed period, as stated above, a request for a change of judge or county may be made by a party still entitled thereto within ten [10] days after the special judge has qualified … The motion for change of venue, filed sixteen days before the issues were closed, clearly was timely.

Jacob Fuller v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2013

Prosecutor: You’re gonna testify without a grant of immunity? … Fuller has demonstrated no abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence; nor has he established prosecutorial misconduct.

Gabina Hernandez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Oct 23 2014, 9:02 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … R. 602), trans. denied; see also Pritchard, 810 N.E.2d at 760 (providing that witnesses clan clearly testify to things that are within their personal knowledge).

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

16 N.E.3d 449 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2014

As to the financial impact, Intervenors cite to Douglas’s testimony establishing the financing costs during the IGCC-9 period. … As applicable, the Commission shall allow an eligible business to ■recover: (1) the costs associated with qualified utility system property: and (2) qualified utility system expenses. I.C. § 8-1-8.8-12(d).

Betty J. Angel v. Kent H. Powelson and Marjorie A. Powelson

977 N.E.2d 434 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2012

Nevertheless, a party should designate materials with “sufficient specificity to identify the relevant portions of a document[,]” and [t]he only requirement as to placement is that the designation clearly identify listed … answer and counterclaim in their designated evidence was improper because those pleadings were unverified, we acknowledge that our Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[u]nsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify

City of Indianapolis v. Armour

918 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2009

That connection fee would be paid in a single, lump sum payment by all affected property owners, although in "special cases" a property owner might qualify for a five-year installment plan. Id. at 4 . … That position is contrary to well established equal protection law.

Ronyai Thompson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

Thus, we reverse only where the trial court‟s decision is clearly erroneous. Id. … Thompson concedes that the evidence establishes that he was present in 4210 Carrollton.