Case law

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

Humphries v. Ables

789 N.E.2d 1025 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2003

Based upon these considerations, the Buyers have failed to establish that there was fraud committed by Betty which caused the Buyers to enter into the contract for the purchase of the liquor store. … The contract clearly states on page *1029 three that the purchase price of the business was to be the base price of $59,000 "plus the wholesale value of the inventory.

State ex rel. Steers v. Acree

139 Ind. App. 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1966

Summarizing the first paragraph, it is alleged that the action or cause was brought by Attorney General Steers, the duly elected, qualified and Acting Attorney General of the State of Indiana, founded upon two (2) State Board … a county officer as applicable under such circumstances as might be relevant under the specific statutes cited, none the less, said Section 49-3006, as pleaded in said second paragraph of answers unconditionally bestows immunity

Meister v. State

864 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2007

An abuse of discretion occurs "where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.2001). … enunciated in Litchfield . [7] Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Tywan A. James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Paul v. … [40] To assess whether the sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory range established for the offenses.

Rahim Brumfield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2020

To qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind. 1999). … Instead, the State offered the evidence to establish that he had a motive to commit T.C.’s murder, an acceptable use under Rule 404(b)(2).

Joanna Latrice Stokes v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2014

While at the appointment, K.H. was attended to by a medical assistant and the pediatrician, and he received the appropriate immunizations. … To qualify as fundamental, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant 10 as to make a fair trial impossible. Id.

Teresa Blackford v. Welborn Clinic

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2020

[7] At the time of the alleged malpractice, Welborn was a qualified provider under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and had filed the required proof of financial responsibility and paid the required … Here, when Welborn’s motion for summary judgment established that Blackford’s claim was filed after the five- year nonclaim limit had expired, the burden shifted to Blackford to establish that there

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.G., L.C., and M.C. (Minor Children), and A.C. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2015

Clearly [Mother] has not made the progress she needs to make to properly meet [G.C.’s] special needs. … Furthermore, we can find no other evidence in the record establishing that Mother verbally abused the children.

Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana

69 N.E.3d 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2017

The Christies cite nothing for the proposition that a (potentially) less punitive charging decision qualifies as a “less restrictive” alternative. … Specifically, Indiana Code Section 34-13-9-1 unambiguously states that RFRA “applies to all . . . statutes,” and Section 34- 13-9-2 just as clearly states that “[a] . . . statute . . . may not be construed

Termination: TF v. Indiana Department of Child Services

69 N.E.3d 932 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

The court highlighted that it “clearly portrayed the young children as mentally and emotionally incompetent, and no doubt totally unaware of [the therapist’s] professional purpose.” Id. … Evidence Rule 702, which governs the admission of expert testimony, and asserts that the testimony did not establish that the GAL was an expert and there was no evidence of what scientific principles the GAL

USA LIFE ONE INS. CO. OF IND. v. Nuckolls

663 N.E.2d 541 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1996

The principles governing application of contract terms are well established. The fact that a term is not defined does not render it ambiguous. Harden v. Monroe Guaranty Ins. … An insurer is free to limit coverage if that limitation is clearly expressed. Delaplane v. Francis (1994) Ind.App., 636 N.E.2d 169 , trans. denied.

Mies v. Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals

970 N.E.2d 251 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

decision made by a BZA, 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 reasonable and clearly stated conditions and if those conditions were not met. Id. at 1014 .

Shambreka Hall v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2025

It is also undisputed that Hall had THC in her bloodstream at the time of the collision and that THC qualifies as a schedule I drug. See Ind. … Under basic principles of due process, a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.

Jordan D. Christie v. Tamara L. Waller (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2016

We will uphold the trial court’s custody determination unless “it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” … [45] Our supreme court has “recognize[d] that judges are not immune from the emotional effects of the cases they hear. . . .

James M. Ross IV v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2014

Powell clearly did not want to speak with the officer and kept trying to move away. … We conclude that the evidence established that Ross was in a place where he had a right to be.

Benjamin T. Haines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2015

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. … See Washington, 758 N.E.2d at 1018 (noting that the transcript of the revocation hearing had been placed in the record and clearly disclosed the court’s basis for revoking the defendant’s probation

Oluwasanmi Animashaun v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2012

Our standard of review for the admissibility of evidence is well established. … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.

Benjamin T. Haines v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2015

To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. … Where either is clearly unreasonable, the search will not be upheld.

Michael M. and Lana S. Ashley v. Jeffrey and Holly Spaw

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2012

For a decision to be reversed on appeal, an abuse of discretion must be clearly demonstrated. Id. … Where the issue is tried before a court and not a jury, the judgment on that issue will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.