Case law

Shepherd v. State

690 N.E.2d 318 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1997

However, the State clearly misinterprets the holding of Chambers . The automobile exception to the search warrant rule requires more than probable cause. … “The State need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.

Leobardo Mercado v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Even though the State filed only two charges against Mercado, he clearly touched M.F. inappropriately many times over several years.

Tyrone Wilbourn v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2014

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Feb 19 2014, 8:22 am establishing the defense of res judicata … “[F]or reversible error the defendant must establish that the trial judge clearly abused that discretion” and “must also designate specifically how he was prejudiced by the reopening of the State’s case.” Maxwell v.

Aguilera v. City of East Chicago Fire Civil Service Commission

768 N.E.2d 978 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2002

its Findings and Conclusions, the Commission sustained Aguilera's discharge under the Ordinance, finding that Aguilera had twice obtained a positive result on a substance abuse test, the second after having completed a qualifying … Clearly, a finding of guilty is not required for a dismissal to occur following a second positive test result, and the Commission correctly upheld Aguilera's dismissal based on his second positive drug test for cocaine in

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc., Ind. Utility Regulatory

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. Co., 485 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 1985).

In Re the Estate of Nancy Jean McMillen, Donna McMillen v. Thomas Kane

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2012

The decision to remove a trustee is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse the trial court only when the court clearly abuses its discretion. Massey v. St. … Indiana Code section 29-1-10-1(d)(3)(A) (2010) requires that an individual who is not a resident of Indiana, but who otherwise qualifies to act as a personal representative, may qualify to serve as a personal representative

Everroad v. State

570 N.E.2d 38 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1991

The Everroads requested a change of judge on November 16, 1979, and Special Judge Westhafer qualified and assumed jurisdiction of the case on December 11, 1979. … On appeal, the Everroads claim the State failed to establish the element of intent.

Stephen G. Bentle v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 08 2013, 5:20 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … In that letter, Bentle falsely stated that he had enrolled in a substance and alcohol abuse program and qualified for Social Security benefits.

Justin Dent v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2013

65(D), this Oct 17 2013, 5:31 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 641, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Highshew v. Kushto

126 Ind. App. 584 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1956

We think the evidence in this case clearly justified the jury in concluding that the appellant's negligence placed the appellee in a position of sudden peril. … No litigant has the right to have any particular individual sit on the jury even if qualified as his right is one of rejection and not selection and if he is eventually tendered a fair and impartial jury to try his case that

Abernathy v. McCoy

91 Ind. App. 574 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1926

We think that the prevailing current of the law now is, particularly as to wills, that where the intention of the donor is clearly manifest from the language used, considering the established rules of construction, such intention … The Century Dictionary defines “evident” as: “Plainly seen, manifest, obvious, plain, clearly discernible, visible, clear.”

Jack Marshall v. Beth Marshall

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2012

I think that the court can take judicial notice of the calendar time. 10 So they would not qualify under that.” Id. at 328. … There is sufficient evidence to establish the aptitude and ability of the parties’ son, as well as his ability to contribute to the laptop expense.

Robin (Bankert) Hall v. Robert H. Bankert

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2014

Shortly after filing this motion, Bankert was notified that the Social Security Administration found he was qualified for Social Security Disability benefits. … Supreme Court has placed a “strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations” and has acknowledged “the principle that child support modifications will not be set aside unless they are clearly

Beech v. State

162 Ind. App. 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1974

The State failed to establish the federal or state regulations and statutes, and therefore failed to show how the defendant did not comply with them; k. … Beech was qualified to receive ADC benefits. 2. The court erred in admitting certain evidence without proper foundation, and such evidence was prejudicial. 3.

Miller v. Ryan

706 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

Since the surgeon was out of the room when the anesthetist performed the injection, and as the anesthetist was experienced and qualified, we decided in Huber that the surgeon would not be held responsible for the negligent … Miller’s recommendation of surgery, did not clearly document that Ryan was experiencing pain in her right foot. There was also testimony by Dr. Sanders that Dr.

Bryant Dowdy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing … Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(C), noting that “the term ‘shortly’ is relative rather than precise,” the purpose of the rule is to assure reliability, and holding that the statements qualified as statements

Smith v. State

655 N.E.2d 532 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

The record also clearly reveals that Furnish was killed as a result of the conspiracy. … The above evidence was admissible and relevant under Indiana common law at the time of trial to establish Smith's preconceived plan to kill Furnish. E.g., Hardin v.

Lakin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

545 N.E.2d 843 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1989

A plaintiff need not establish the defect was the sole cause of the injury, proximate cause is sufficient. Green v. *847 River Terminal Ry Co. (1985 6th Cir.), 763 F.2d at 805, 810. … Clearly, it was a question for the jury as to whether the BIA was violated and whether the violation was the proximate cause of Lakin's injury.

Mays v. Parker

147 Ind. App. 81 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1970

Smith, is and was at all times mentioned herein the duly elected, qualified and serving Judge of the Circuit Court of Madison County. 3. … The other corporation had failed to win voter approval and clearly never came into existence.

United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lowe

583 N.E.2d 164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1991

The notice from Farm Bureau to its policyholders clearly stated that current policies, which included uninsured motorist coverage, would be revised and amended, effective January 1, 1988, to provide both uninsured and underinsured … Certainly, if the legislative intent was to exclude all renewed policies, there would be no need for such qualifying language in the statute.