Case law

Tyrice Halliburton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2016

Williams believed was “well-versed” and “well-qualified” in capital case mitigation proceedings, for the purpose of researching viable defenses and evidence for the enhancement … In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id.

Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer

684 N.E.2d 504 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1997

A- judgment is clearly erroneous if not supported by the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are clearly erroneous if unsupported by the findings of fact. Hvidston v. Eastridge, 591 N.E.2d 566, 568 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). … A petroleum release is not affected by CERCLA, because .petroleum does not qualify as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA.

James O. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2017

Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 30 2017, 8:56 am court except for the purpose of establishing … A defendant’s statement may also be the product of coercion, and thus inadmissible, if it is obtained through promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Massey v.

McIntosh v. State

829 N.E.2d 531 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2005

Richard Ofshe, a University of Berkeley psychologist who was qualified as an expert in social psychology and police interrogation techniques, testified at the suppression hearing. … It is our hope that the Columbus Police Department will err on the side of caution in the future and conduct interrogations that clearly follow the law of Miranda. 6 .

Think Tank Software Development Corp. v. Chester, Inc.

30 N.E.3d 738 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

Next, we concluded that Think Tank had established a dispute of material fact as to lost profits arising from Chester’s relationship with four specific customers. … To invoke this doctrine, the matters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of an opinion. Id. at 1082-83 .

David L. Searcy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2026

A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. [36] Here, the challenged evidence was relevant. … The restrictions, however, may apply if Searcy’s offenses qualify as an “episode of criminal conduct” under Indiana Code § 35- 50-1-2(c)-(d) (2020).

American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co. v. American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co.

161 Ind. App. 166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1974

Rosalind established for Barbara a trust with assets of approximately $275,000.00. Velma and Key were married in 1965 and lived as husband and wife until his death in 1971. … The will in the Whitman case contained language that is clearly distinguish *182 able from that involved in this case. 252 Ind. App. 669 , 251 N.E.2d at 672 .

State of Indiana v. Shianne Brooks-Brown

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

Thus, in Marley our Supreme Court was obliged to direct the defendant to present her effects-of- battery evidence under the insanity defense in accordance with our legislature’s clearly stated intent … We noted that the out-of-state attorney was not qualified to provide expert testimony on the effects of battery. Id.

Edward Graveline v. Melina (Graveline) Peyovich

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs when the judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 1 On appeal, Wife briefly argues that Ind. … In that case, following the dissolution of the parties’ marriage in 1996, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered reflecting the trial court’s distribution of the husband’s vested retirement benefits.

Santelli v. RAHMATULLAH

966 N.E.2d 661 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

Clearly, the Act allows for recovery from criminal defendants and our Supreme Court has approved the allocation of fault to criminal defendants. I.C. § 34-51-2-10 (West, Westlaw current through 2011 1st Reg. … Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.1991) (incorporating Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 in adopting the “invitation test” for use in determining who qualifies as an invitee in premises liability actions); see also Frye v.

Saint Joseph's College v. Morrison, Inc.

158 Ind. App. 272 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1973

Such statutes must be strictly construed in order to determine whether the mechanic qualified himself under the statute to receive the liberal remedies there available. Puritan Engineering Corp. v. … These cases indicate an established policy of allowing joinder of claims in cases where such joinder will not prejudice the rights of the property owner.

James F. Glass v. CPG Partners, LP, JDR Fixtures, Inc., Under Armour Premium Outlet, KP Sullivan Builders, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2019

Worton entered an order appointing Judge Benjamin as special judge upon her qualifying. … the party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or litigated the action in bad faith.

Donna J. Hamilton v. Robert D. Hamilton

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2019

Its decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly demonstrated. Devereux v. Love, 30 N.E.3d 754, 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. … If necessary, Wife shall be responsible for preparing the Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

Cheek v. Hamlin

150 Ind. App. 681 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 1972

The parties stipulated the following: the date of the fatal collision was December 16, 1967, with the train striking the Ford Ranchero at Long Avenue at about 12:50 o’clock; Norma Jean Cheek was the duly appointed, qualified … E. 2d 167 , the rule with respect to willful or wanton [misconduct] under the Guest Statute is well established. The difficulty is only in applying the changing factual situation to the established precedents.

Jimmie I. Immel v. Jennifer W. Immel

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2012

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED Jul 25 2012, 9:27 am establishing … Wife acknowledges that the requirement that Husband continue to carry her on his health insurance qualifies as an award of maintenance.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2018

Specifically, he argues that his prior Ohio convictions are not “serious enough to qualify as prior convictions for purposes of Indiana’s habitual offender statute[s].” Appellant’s Br. at 22. … An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v.

Deandre Moore v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2016

Decision shall not be Jul 29 2016, 8:16 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.

4447 CORP. v. Goldsmith

479 N.E.2d 578 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1985

It recites he visited one of the appellants' establishments, the Adult Toy and Gift Shop in Indianapolis. … Such evidence clearly demonstrates two or more incidents of racketeering activity, and the obscene nature of the materials at issue in each case.

Maurice Amos, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2014

The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” … To establish that Amos was an habitual offender, the State was required to show that he had “accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions.” Ind.

Mark A. Salisbury v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2013

We accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. … However, Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.5(e) allows the prosecuting attorney to request a hearing to determine if a defendant is an SVP if he does not qualify as an SVP by operation of law - in this case, if he commits