Case law

City of Indianapolis v. Nickel

165 Ind. App. 250 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1975

The remonstrators also presented the live testimony of a qualified appraiser who stated his opinion as to the value of the remonstrators’ various parcels before and after the installation of the sewers. … However, the law regarding the nature of such proceedings has been clearly established in this state by the decisions of this court. Upon this issue this court has stated: *264 “ ‘. . . In City of Elkhart v.

Keith Eller, Nathaniel Hall, and Jeffrey Tatum v. City of Gary, Gary Police Civil Service Commission, and Vergie Thornton

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2013

Appellants have wholly failed to establish that this process violates the Rules or Ordinance 5881, as amended. … As set out above, they clearly had this right under the Rules. Hall and Tatum were provided an appeal to the Commission; Eller was not.

Harris v. State

824 N.E.2d 432 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2005

Moreover, the State clearly confirmed at the hearing on Harris' motion to dismiss that it is the policy of this particular prosecutor's office that a waiver be requested in any juvenile case where the offense is murder and … However, the impact on others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases. Id.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S. D.S. v. Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2012

Specifically, the trial court found that the record clearly showed Father was properly served with the summons and termination petition in the underlying case. … you fail to appear at the hearing, the Juvenile Court may terminate your parent-child relationship; and if the court terminates your parent-child relationship[,] you will lose all parental rights, powers, privileges, immunities

Funk v. Funk

563 N.E.2d 127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1990

An unsworn statement or uncertified exhibit does not qualify for consideration on a summary judgment motion. Id. … Clearly, it was possible for the decedent to have acquired other real property before his death. Thus, the residuary clause was not tailored exclusively for the farm.

D.P. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2018

Mar 09 2018, 8:57 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be

Robert Decker v. Paul Whitesell, as Superintendent of the Indiana State Police, The Indiana State Police Board, and The Indiana State Police

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2012

We may vacate the agency’s decision only if the evidence, when viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the agency are clearly erroneous. Id. … The evidence presented at the hearing established that Decker scheduled only four sessions by June 17, 2009.

State v. Trueblood

25 Ind. App. 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1900

Malott is referred to, named, and described as the “duly elected, qualified and acting auditor.” … The offense is defined in almost the exact language of the statute, and the acts constituting the offense are clearly stated.

The City of Sullivan v. North American Latex Corp, Kenneth Wayne Plummer, and Others Owning Property

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2014

The first two clearly pertained only to increasing tax revenues. … The City argues that the Remonstrators failed to establish all of the factors set forth in subsection (e).

Pamela A. Thompson v. Carroll E. Thompson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Mar 27 2013, 8:35 am establishing … On review, we do not set aside the trial court’s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.

Nicholaus Knecht v. State of Indiana

85 N.E.3d 829 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2017

This constitutional rule prohibits evidence even if it qualifies for a state law hearsay exception. Crawford overruled a portion of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D. v. Estate of Phyllis R. Barnes, By Peggy Hood, as Personal Representative, Joe Clinkenbeard, P.A., Stephen W. Robertson

2 N.E.3d 43 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2013

In interpreting a statute, our first step is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question; if so, no room exists for judicial construction. Siwinski v. … Code Ann. § 34-50-1-6 (West, Westlaw current with all 2013 legislation) (providing that if a recipient does not accept a “qualified settlement offer” and the final judgment is less favorable than the terms of the offer,

Pinch-N-Post, LLC v. Verna McIntosh

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2019

Courts of appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. … [7] To summarize, the sale proceeds first satisfy the property tax obligation for the property, then satisfy certain other qualifying tax obligations of the property owner, with any surplus going into the

Robert Coleman v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2020

[10] During the September 2019 sentencing hearing, Coleman’s counsel asked to make a “statement” in which he argued that the evidence was insufficient and that “saliva does not qualify as bodily waste … “[D]ue process requires that a penal statute clearly define its prohibitions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

James Mies and Janice Mies v. Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

it must determine whether the decision is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law ; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The panel determined that the BZA had the authority to revoke variances if they were subject to 20 reasonable and clearly stated conditions and if those conditions were not met

Grothe v. Herschbach

153 Ind. App. 224 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1972

Trial Rule 65 embodies the historic rule as set forth in the Lemon case, supra, and clearly makes temporary relief available to any party that can bring itself within the meaning of the rule. … 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

Bemenderfer v. Williams

720 N.E.2d 400 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1999

However, Williams would be required to establish dependency, not merely a financial loss. … The statute is clearly to the contrary, and even if Hoy's death leaves Williams as a surviving dependent child beneficiary eligible to recover, she may do so only if she proves dependency.

Marlon Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 08 2017, 7:55 am court except for the purpose of establishing … “Common sense and ordinary human experience” would qualify this as a most unusual and suspicious situation. Reinhart, 930 N.E.2d at 46.

Smith v. Delta Tau Delta

988 N.E.2d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances supporting the judgment for relief. Id. … An unsworn statement or unverified exhibit does not qualify as proper evidence. Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624, 627 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Bolka

693 N.E.2d 613 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1998

conflicting claims with other members of the class; 2) the named representative must have a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy; and 3) counsel for the named plaintiff must be competent, experienced, qualified … It is imperative to note that in adopting the use of collateral estoppel without regard to concerns of privity and mutuality, our Supreme Court clearly subjects employment of the doctrine to the requirements of the United