Case law

S.R. v. R.S.Y. and T.L.Y.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2013

Neither will be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. … Considering only the evidence favorable to the judgment, a trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous when there is no evidence or reasonable inferences supporting them, and a judgment is clearly erroneous when

Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana and Angel Badillo

33 N.E.3d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

“[V]oters who are lawfully qualified to participate in our democratic process may not be disenfranchised except by their own willful or deliberate act to the extent that one who did not receive the … Thus, “[t]he existence of a fact which disqualifies, and of the law which makes that fact operate to disqualify, must be brought home so closely and so clearly to the knowledge or notice of the elector, as

John R. Myers II v. State of Indiana

33 N.E.3d 1077 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2015

State, 448 N.E.2d 665, 667 (Ind. 1983) (lay witnesses may not give opinions where jury is well qualified to form an opinion).” Appellant’s Brief at 28-29. … For these reasons, a decision not to pursue the Owings theory would clearly reflect a reasonable strategic judgment.

Board of Commissioners v. Board of Commissioners

27 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1901

If the right is doubtful, it must first be established by an ordinary action at law, where the right is such as admits of its establishment in that way. … S. 1881) continued in use, and the provision therefor was not amended until 1891 (Acts 1891, p. 376, §534 Bxirns 1894), when a mode of selection by the jury commissioners of qualified persons, preparatory to the striking

Tabitha Edwards v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 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 the defense of res judicata, … The trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.

Newsome v. State

686 N.E.2d 868 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1997

The onus is upon a defendant to establish that a witness is not competent. Id. … Adherence to the old analysis, which clearly has been abandoned, will cause confusion to the bench and bar in Indiana.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Jane Doe

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2023

“Credentialing” refers to the process of determining whether a doctor is qualified to be on the medical staff. See, e.g., Hall v. Jennie Edmundson Mem’l Hosp., 812 N.W.2d 681, 683 n.1 (Iowa 2012). … In the instant case, the record clearly establishes that, for purposes of the Act, John Doe II was a patient, and both Cavins and the Hospital were health care providers.

Jackson v. Beard

146 Ind. App. 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1970

However, we have a completely different question presented by the appellee’s qualifying at the time he did for social security than we have in the J. C. Penney case and in Brindle v. … The direct questioning of the plaintiff and his careful answers appeared to be clearly designed to leave the jury with a false impression.

Highler v. State

834 N.E.2d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2005

Moreover, to allow the exelusion of an otherwise qualified venire person simply on account of that person's religious affiliation would amount to permitting jury selection procedures that promote "state-sponsored group stereotypes … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the cireum-stances before it. Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of Nov. 1, 2002, Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2002-HE3 v. Patricia Harris and Shawn Harris

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for Trial Rule 60(B) relief. In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010). … An abuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous, that is, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

Richard A. Childress, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2012

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. Id. … For the sake of argument however, let us assume that the statement in question was hearsay and did not qualify as a statement of a co-conspirator.

Aaron Harlow v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 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, … Accordingly, these statements are clearly relevant as they tend to show Harlow’s guilt.

Jason Dane Brown v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2023

London refused to answer the simplest of questions despite having use immunity and the benefit of appointed counsel. Dr. … We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Jones v. State, 982 N.E.2d 417, 421 (Ind. Ct.

Cedric S. Ware v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2017

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 or it misinterprets the law. Id. … United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 (1948) (noting that, if the presence of odor is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a

Scott Grundy v. State of Indiana

38 N.E.3d 675 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

If you [were] wrong, admit you were wrong[;] don’t qualify it. *** [T]he State[,] today[,] has requested a [thirty-five-]year sentence. … [Seventeen] is far too many[,] so you clearly have a problem, Mr.

Michael S. Scroggins, II v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2012

However, the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age is not necessary for it to qualify as an aggravating factor. See McCann v. … We agree with the State that this establishes his recklessness and disregard for the safety of others on the highways.

Provident Bank v. Tri-County Southside Asphalt, Inc.

804 N.E.2d 161 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2004

Thus, with respect to the land and buildings, Tri-County's lien is clearly junior to Provident's. III. … Ind.Code § 32-28-3-1 (Supp.2003) provides that a contractor or other qualified person may have a lien: [U]pon the: (1) house, mill, manufactory, or other building, bridge, reservoir, system of waterworks, or other structure

The First Baptist Church of Hammond v. Felipe Andrade, a minor, by his mother and custodial parent, Manuela Andrade

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 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, … A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id.

Kyle Kaszuba v. AnnaMarie Dugan Norris, as Guardian of the Estate of Christopher Dugan, an incompetent person

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2025

“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. (quoting Turner v. … During preliminary questioning, the trial court found that Officer Heustis was “qualified under [Evidence Rule] 701 to give the jury testimony based on his perception of what he saw at the scene and

Billy Russell v. State of Indiana

981 N.E.2d 1280 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … In such a case, the defendant must establish that the failure to give an instruction constituted fundamental error. Id.