Case law

Tammy Spengler v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … In the instant matter, nothing in the record establishes a nexus between these claimed mental health issues and the commission of the instant criminal acts.

In Re the Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of El.S. and Et.S. (Minor Children) and M.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2013

The parent-child relationship between the children, El.S. and Et.S. and Mother is hereby terminated and all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations, including the right … In sum, Mother has failed to establish that the trial court’s findings are either fatally incomplete or clearly erroneous. II.

Bruce Foster v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2014

An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. … In summary, Salyers’s testimony clearly indicated that he possessed the required functional knowledge of how AT&T’s mobile telephone records were generated.

Anthony Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2013

“The fundamental error exception to the waiver rule is available only where the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process and the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied … “To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Rowe v. State, 867 N.E.2d 262, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Penni Williams v. John Mark Williams

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 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 May 31 2013, 9:26 am establishing the defense of … court to order either or both parents to pay sums toward their child’s college education constitutes a reasonable manner in which to enforce the expectation that most families would encourage their qualified

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.T., Minor Child, M.T., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012

Father was evaluated by the Samaritan Center, but the facility lacked a qualified therapist to provide sex offender treatment. Father continued with in-home therapy but did not address the sex abuse issue. … In deference to the trial court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous.

Kelly Robertson v. Elkhart Housing Authority

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2014

Employer is a public entity that was established under Ind. Code Ann. § 36-7-18 et seq. … We need consider only one of those elements, however, as the evidence clearly indicates this element was not met.

Sonia Long v. City of Logansport, Building Commissioner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2014

The sole possible disputed issue here is whether the building qualifies as an “unsafe building.” … As such, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the building qualifies as an “unsafe building” as a matter of law under the definitions of the Unsafe Building Law.

Ontorio Frye v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2014

The fact that Frye was injured as a result of his operation of his vehicle clearly indicates that he operated the vehicle in a manner that could have—and in fact did—endanger Frye. … Upon review, we conclude that Frye has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the speech in question qualified as protected political speech under Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution.

Akeem Carpenter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

[19] The generally accepted procedure in answering a jury’s question on a matter of law is to reread all instructions in order to avoid emphasizing any particular point and not to qualify, modify, or … Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1510-CR-1746 | August 11, 2016 Page 12 of 17  weapon was ever recovered, that Davis described a man with blue pants as the one who shot Wu, and that Carpenter was clearly

Antwoine Young v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2014

Accordingly, we accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s conclusions of law. Wilson v. State, 799 N.E.2d 51, 53 (Ind. … Matthew Lutheran Church was not a qualifying youth program center, the trial court (arguably) would not have permitted the State to amend its information again – “regardless of whether there was a ‘plethora’ of qualifying

Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort

452 N.E.2d 989 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1983

However, to the extent that the court's order was "the culmination of a series of adverse actions of said Judge establishing a pattern which now clearly demonstrates the hostility, bias and prejudice of Judge Munro ..." … He also points out that the trial judge qualified on February 28, 1977, but took no action until March 29, 1977.

Magee v. Garry-Magee

833 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2005

But the court then added a provision not apparent on the face of the Agreement and clearly not contemplated by the parties. … Wife's argument would also require us to disregard the qualifying language in paragraph two, which provides that Husband's waiver of his interest in Wife's property is subject to the paragraphs "below" paragraph two.

Willsey v. Peoples Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of East Chicago

529 N.E.2d 1199 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1988

The proponent has the burden of establishing there are no material facts at issue. SCruby v. Waugh (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 533 . … In addition, "a qualified attorney's legal opinion as to an ultimate fact in issue is admissible, unless it addresses matters within the common knowledge and experience of ordinary persons." McCullough v.

Snow v. Rincker

823 N.E.2d 1234 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2005

Meghan is an excellent student who attended the Indiana Academy at Ball State University, which is an honors program for qualified high school students. … Further, Snow offered nothing regarding his financial status other than his gross income to establish what a burden Meghan's college expenses at St. Louis University might be.

Benjamin A. Hankins v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2013

As a general rule, hearsay is inadmissible unless the statement falls within one of the established hearsay exceptions. Yamobi v. … This testimony is sufficient to establish that J.H. was motivated to provide truthful information to promote diagnosis or treatment.

James E. Saylor v. State of Indiana

55 N.E.3d 354 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 2016

We review the post-conviction court’s legal conclusions de novo but accept its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 746. … The petitioner must establish that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Smith v.

Roy Hudnall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. … Authentication of an exhibit can be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Id.

Armando B. Quintero v. Maria L. Quintero

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2013

A judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions entered on the findings. Id. … Findings of fact can also be found clearly erroneous, but only when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from evidence that would support them. Id.

Culver Community Teachers Association v. Indiana Education Employment Relations Board

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2020

, we may only set aside an agency action if “(1) [it is] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The trial court’s findings and conclusions thereon dismissing Nettle Creek and Jay Classroom I as dicta are clearly erroneous.