Case law

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.

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.

Clarence Boris Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2019

Bankston crawled along the sidewalk in front of the Pony and around the side 1 The Pony is an alcohol-free establishment. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870, 877 (Ind. Ct.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.B. (Minor Child)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

Following Parents’ qualified admission, the trial court adjudicated the Child to be a CHINS. … Accordingly, in reviewing whether the trial court’s findings or judgment are clearly erroneous, we must determine “whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and the findings clearly and convincingly

In the Matter of the Adoption of M.S.T. R.P.M.T. v. C.K. and J.P.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2012

“A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. … Findings of Fact Father argues that the trial court’s finding number 25 was clearly erroneous.

In re the Adoption of M.D.: S.D. (Father) v. S.F. (Mother), and D.M. (Adoptive Parent)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 2014

In August 2007, Mother (via the State) filed a petition to establish court-ordered child support. … We have recently construed the term as follows: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “unfit” as “[u]nsuitable; not adapted or qualified for a particular use or service” or “[m]orally unqualified; incompetent

Steven E Malloch v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

“When evaluating a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply the well- established, two-part Strickland test. … He argues that a “minimally competent defense attorney would have secured the testimony of a qualified expert.” (Appellant’s Br. at 58.) In Liao v.

James Beasley v. State of Indiana

30 N.E.3d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2015

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … App. 2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878)), trans.

In the Matter of the Paternity of I.B., R.P. v. M.B., As Next of Friend of I.B.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2012

proceedings to establish paternity. … The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Jarrells

906 N.E.2d 912 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2009

In return... the employer is given immunity from civil litigation with his employee. … I clearly part ways with the majority's treatment of our Pendleton decision.

CAULDWELL, INC. v. Patterson

133 Ind. App. 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1962

The evidence tends to establish that the defendant violated the statute at said intersection and the complaint must be considered amended to conform to such proof. … We think that the inclusion of the qualifying clause in Instruction No. 10 herein “until he had reasonable cause for notice to the contrary,” distinguishes the case at bar from the aforesaid Spickelmeir case. Kraning v.

Terry Delane McNary v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2017

We review de novo a ruling on the constitutionality of a search or seizure but give deference to a trial court’s factual determinations and will not overturn them unless they are clearly erroneous. … Unless an established exception applies, law enforcement must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before executing a search and seizure. Stark, 960 N.E.2d at 889.

Lisa Haynes Whorley v. John F. Whorley, Jr. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2017

By misquoting the guideline to create two separate categories of “family member” and “household member,” and then using that misquoted language to declare Ortega to be a qualified person for this purpose, … The trial court clearly did not give credit to Mother’s testimony on this matter.

State of Indiana v. Shaun L. Steele

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2012

When a clearly erroneous judgment results from an application of the wrong legal standard to properly found facts, we do not defer to the trial court. … Trial counsel opined that “whether [Steele] qualified as a habitual criminal offender was never really an issue” – the strong inference being that because of Steele’s “rather lengthy” criminal history, the proof of that

Jason Keel v. April Najdowski

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2014

Father eventually petitioned for a change of judge, and a new judge qualified and accepted the case. … To the extent Father argues the “[t]rial court does not conform to Indiana code” and the “trial court has clearly acted out side [sic] the scope of being a mediator in this case,” Brief of Appellant at 7-8, Father has not

Louis Amalfitano v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2012

He instead moved to strike the letter and Cole’s testimony after Cole refused to testify upon direct and cross-examination after the State extended her use immunity. … The letter clearly lacks formality, and, more crucially, its primary purpose was not to provide investigatory material to police.

Buddy & Pal's III, Inc. v. Stephen Shearer

91 N.E.3d 1000 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

Shearer also maintains that, regardless of his normal cognitive functions, he is not a qualified medical expert and is in no way qualified to determine his own injuries; that while he claimed he was … The evidence demonstrates that the accident occurred five to ten minutes after leaving the bar and establishes the extent to which Coyle appeared visibly intoxicated at that point.

Christopher M. Galvan v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2014

In large part, the State’s theory was that Kathleen’s emotional reaction was a traumatic event that would qualify F.’s subsequent statements to Kathleen under the excited-utterance exception. … The State resumed questioning Kathleen to establish whether this testimony would be permitted.

Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc. d/b/a HWC Engineering, Inc., Marlin A. Knowles, Jr., Jonathan A. Day, Tom Mobley, and David Lancet v. American Consulting, Inc.

64 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2016

[26] To establish a party has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, the party must establish a prima facie case. Apple Glen Crossing, LLC v. … We will reverse the trial court’s judgment only when it is clearly erroneous, and a judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been

Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund (PERF) v. Robert O. Effner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case … In its entirety, the 2006 Annual Statement clearly and unambiguously informs the recipient that only employment in a PERF-covered position resulting in additional years of creditable service will increase the member’s monthly