Case law

Brandan Lee Eakright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2018

was clearly clouded by her intoxication and fueled by potential criminal mischief and/or punishment that she could have faced. Appellant’s Br. p. 24. … [24] Eakright argues that “he qualifies for a reduced sentence” because the nature of the offense “is not particularly egregious due to the nature and location of the touch[ing] and [because there was

City of Bloomington v. Catherine Smith

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2025

We remain mindful, however, that “a statute comes clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … [47] Additionally, the 2019 Act does not intrude on a field traditionally immune from regulation.

Kenneth Lainhart v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2012

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. … State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind. 2002) (“To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.

Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta, Wabash Col.

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).

DGB v. State

833 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2005

The supreme court went on to state that under less stressful events, such a lengthy time period might not qualify for the excited utterance exception. Hammon, 829 N.E.2d at 449 ; see, e.g., Davenport v. … If the statement is taken pursuant to established procedures, either the subjective motivation of the individual taking the statement or the objectively evaluated purpose of the procedure is sufficient. Id. at 456 .

Charles Neal v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2012

In 2007, Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.5 was amended to clarify that certain convictions qualify an offender as a SVP “by operation of law.” … He qualified as a SVP under the 2007 amendments because he had two unrelated convictions for sex offenses.

In Re the Guardianship of C.S. and A.S.: E.R. v. M.S. and D.S.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2013

Aug 05 2013, 5:25 am 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 establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … The Court held in In re Guardianship of A.J.A. that the grandparent did not have standing to seek visitation because only the parents of the deceased parent qualify under I.C. § 31-17-5-1(1).

Gateway West Townhouse Association, Barry J. Stern and Judy C. Stern v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. SF Industrial Properties-Indianapolis, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2013

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 establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law … Finally, the judicial review statutes provide that “only a person who qualifies under” the provisions concerning standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, timely filing of a petition for review, and timely filing

Bryan Swineford v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 24 2014, 5:54 am the defense of res judicata, collateral … Swineford failed three field sobriety tests and registered a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) of 0.20. 1 Because Swineford had a previous OWI conviction within five years, his 2006 OWI conviction qualified

Christopher Starkey v. Janet Panoch

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2012

In 2007, Husband and Wife moved to Marion County and established a marital residence there, where they lived with Z.S. and L.S. in 2007 and 2008. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 840.

Schwartz v. Gary Community School Corp.

762 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2002

The issue of whether payment for accrued but unused sick leave qualifies as wages for purpose of this statute is an issue of first impression in Indiana We have, however, examined this issue within the context of both bonus … These are clearly cireumstances beyond the employee's control. We find GCSC's decision to terminate Schwartz from the position he held both before and after his sabbatical likewise one beyond the employees control.

Vinson v. State

735 N.E.2d 828 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2000

Thus, as police officers assisting in the prosecution of this case, Officer Butts and Officer Hoover both clearly qualify for the second exemption from exclusion as provided in Evid.R.615. U.S. v. … Thus, because under Evid.R.615 the State had the right to have both Officer Butts and Officer Hoover remain in the courtroom, and because no evidence was presented to establish any prejudice, we conclude that the trial court

Plan Commission for Floyd County, Indiana v. Klein

765 N.E.2d 632 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2002

The ordinance must contain specific standards by which the plan commission can determine whether the plat qualifies for approval. Inp.Cope § 36-7-4-702(b). … Such testimony, however, while helpful, is totally irrelevant to *647 establishing whether a plat complies with a subdivision control ordinance. Cundiff v.

Jewell D. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing FILED the defense of res judicata, collateral … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt v.

Brandon McManomy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2014

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Jan 27 2014, 7:01 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res … 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. Id.

Mary E. Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

These cases establish the framework for the determination of whether we may review the merits of the motion to correct error once it is belatedly granted. … 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.

Perry v. State

867 N.E.2d 638 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2007

And we acknowledge that "`an error in the instruction of the jury does not require reversal if the conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.'" … Having waived this issue, Perry must establish fundamental error to warrant reversal. I do not believe that the mistake in this case rises to that level.

Ian McCullough v. State of Indiana

973 N.E.2d 62 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2012

McCullough’s counsel argued that the State’s investigation was poor, stating, “I believe our evidence regarding our investigation is clearly, clearly more thorough than the State’s investigation.” Id. at 786. … Specifically, he stated, “I believe our evidence regarding our investigation is clearly, clearly more thorough than the State’s investigation.” Id. at 786.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of A.B.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

He is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry. Dr. Porter has been [A.B.]’s treating psychiatrist since November 2008. Dr. … Yohanna is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. 15. Dr.

Tina R. Like Simmons v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. … Simmons contends Officer Tharp did not qualify under Rule 701 because he lacked sufficient personal knowledge regarding the Nazi method of manufacturing methamphetamine.