Case law

Bryan Jann v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and C&B Custom Modular, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2012

It has been established the working conditions were detrimental to the claimant and justified the claimant’s separation. … The claimant is qualified. Ex. Vol. p. 1. C&B then sought review of this determination by an ALJ.

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.

Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza v. Todd Schuman

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 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 … An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s denial of the motion is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the order. Id.

Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider

15 N.E.3d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2014

This case highlights just how inexact property valuation is; the trial court was faced with two qualified experts who presented diametrically opposed opinions, supported by extensive reports and reasoning, as to the value … It is unclear, for example, whom the trial court might name as the voting trustee, which ordinarily is agreed upon by the shareholders establishing a voting trust.

Jason Myers v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2012

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. … However, the April 4 amendment at issue clearly was not an amendment of substance; it was an amendment to form, governed by Indiana Code section 35-34-1-5(c), which states: Upon motion of the prosecuting attorney

Joe M. Meyers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2017

Westbrook, pursuant to a Use Immunity Agreement, testified that Gonzales had a Sig Sauer .380 caliber handgun. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A01-1609-PC-2265 | October 18, 2017 Page 9 of 37  reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

Demetrius Damon Taylor v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2013

Instead, in attempting to establish a non-hearsay basis for Det. … It requires the defendant to establish that the misconduct “[made] a fair trial impossible or constitute[d] clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process” or that the misconduct

Patty Garcia v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 14 2012, 9:15 am court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind. Ct.

Naveen Rajamony v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2017

A juror who qualifies for removal for-cause “may be removed as an ‘incompetent juror,’ while a juror ‘who is not removable for cause but whom the party wishes to strike’ peremptorily is termed ‘objectionable … However, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that he failed to establish that an “objectionable” juror served on his jury. Id.

Badelle v. State

754 N.E.2d 510 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2001

Price was selected and thereafter qualified as Special Judge for the case. The Honorable John Price presided over Petitioner's second trial in June, 1979. Attorney Charles Beck served as Mr. … Information regarding the first of these reported rewards was clearly available to Trial Counsel, as its existence was published several months prior to Ba-delle's second trial.

Tamara J. Shidler, surviving spouse of Michael R. Shidler v. Dennis G. Lockrey, M.D., and Sigma Medical Group, LLC, d/b/a Sigma Med Express Care, and James D. Pike, D.O.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 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. … Khuong was insufficiently qualified to offer an opinion on the matter. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Dr.

Jake E. Estes v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2013

The court dismissed the habitual substance offender charge based upon a motion by the State, which indicated that Estes did not qualify under the statute. … The other instruction stated: Evidence which merely tends to establish a suspicion of guilt, or evidence which tends to establish a mere opportunity to commit the offense charged, is clearly

David G. Kaufman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2019

After C.R. agreed, Kaufman told C.R. that the study would first involve answering a survey of questions to see if C.R. would qualify for the study. Kaufman then asked C.R. … 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. Conley v.

Linke v. Northwestern School Corp.

734 N.E.2d 252 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2000

In Chandler , the Court held that candidates running for a state political office in Georgia could not be subject to a drug test in order to qualify for the position. … This may be subject to some question in that Todd clearly emphasized the special needs interest of the school while Willis focused heavily upon the preference for individualized suspicion.

Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2013

When asked by the trial court if he had any objection to the admission of such evidence, Bowen’s trial counsel clearly stated “No judge not to this.” (Tr. p. 116). … To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Ruggieri v. State, 804 N.E.2d 859, 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Joshua D. Gaunt v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2013

The trial court also determined that Gaunt may serve two years of the four executed years on home detention through community corrections, if he qualified and if he could pay the costs associated with the program. … We review for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id.

Robert Brandon v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2012

For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution, two offenses are identical and one must be vacated if the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish all of … On rare occasions, an appellate court may determine as a matter of law that certain injuries do not qualify as “serious bodily injury.” See Davis v.

Carter v. State

155 Ind. App. 10 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

Where the evidence presented is sufficient to establish a necessarily lesser included crime, 9-1817 authorizes conviction of the necessarily lesser included offense. Watford v. State, supra ; Burnett v. … Act, but in the words of the robbery act, plus "feloniously", which clearly alleged a taking from the person with intent to deprive the owner of the use and benefit of his property.

Eric Davis v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2014

The evidence clearly indicates that Davis became argumentative and belligerent with Officer Lawalin the moment Officer Lawalin arrived on the scene. … After a clearly intoxicated and very heated Davis said “f**k you” to Officer Lawalin, Officer Lawalin admonished Davis to “calm down.” Id. at 21-22.

Metro Holdings One, Llc, Exproman, Inc., and Quaker Sales & Distribution v. Flynn Creek Partner, Llc

25 N.E.3d 141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

Indeed, vendors traditionally have qualified for the remedy of specific performance of a real estate contract after a purchaser’s breach. See 14 James H. … On appeal, another panel of this Court held that the trial court’s judgment that the seller was entitled to specific performance was “clearly erroneous” because the seller had not made the requisite showing that he had