Case law

Sharniece Crump v. Claystone at the Crossing

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Jan 31 2014, 9:08 am establishing … report detailing 1 In challenging her eviction on appeal, Crump asserts that eviction from her apartment for a violation of the terms of her lease agreement could potentially impact her ability to qualify

Alan Karenke v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2020

Furthermore, Deputy Rudolph testified intelligently about and with personal knowledge of the procedures used to record the telephone calls, making him a “qualified witness” as to the records of regularly … That is to say, Karenke must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that “the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish

Shelley Murphy v. Indiana Women's Prison and Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2014

over CMS’s objection and ordered Murphy to respond after discovery had been completed or by May 1, 2012, whichever 1 This action is exempt from the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because CMS is not a qualified … 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.

Roeschlein v. Thomas

273 N.E.2d 554 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1971

The office of Chief Justice of Indiana is created and a system of discipline, removal, and retirement of judges is established. … Also, § 29-4204, supra, states in part: "The proposed constitutional amendment or amendments shall be stated on such ballots in words sufficient to clearly designate the same, and such statement or statements shall be printed

Peters v. Poor Sisters of Saint Francis

148 Ind. App. 453 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1971

The court clearly exceeded the scope of judicial authority.” (parenthesis added) In the same vein the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit stated in Indianapolis Education Ass’n v. … To establish rigid substantive and procedural requirements which had to be met before an injunction could be issued in a labor dispute.

Damionne M. Nichols v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2012

App. 2006), trans. denied, this court held that Indiana Code § 35-47-1-5 “clearly contemplates that some conversion, such as reorganization or assembly, of parts may be required.” … is, by definition, a firearm with certain characteristics” and that a handgun need not be operable to fit within the definition of a firearm), trans. denied. 2 During the trial, Nichols stipulated that he “ha[d] a qualifying

Jennifer Fleming v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2014

Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 13 2014, 6:49 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … We will not reverse such a decision unless it is clearly contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case or misinterprets the law. Id.

Shipley v. Keybank National Ass'n

821 N.E.2d 868 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2005

Finally, we held that because Shipley was not qualified to serve as counsel for the receiver, he was without authority to act. Id. at 858 . … Thus, this Court has required that a written memorial must form the basis for establishing the error or omission to be corrected by the nune pro tune order.

Keybank National Ass'n v. Shipley

846 N.E.2d 290 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2006

Finally, 'we held that because Shipley was not qualified to serve as counsel for the receiver, he was without authority to act; therefore, we reversed the court's order granting payment of fees and expenses to Shipley and … The court added that the duties of a re *299 ceiver are clearly distinguishable from the duties of a personal representative and that courts are involved in receiverships but not in the administration of estates, both of

State Farm v. Shuman, Admx.

175 Ind. App. 186 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1977

Shuman’s complaint, as amended, clearly withstands this test. In regard to the TR. 9(B) challenge, we observe first of all that failure to comply with the special pleading provisions of TR. 9(B) is not fatal. … We have assumed, arguendo, that these prior pleadings qualify as admissions. Shuman correctly points out that the pleading in Boots involved an express admission.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2013

And if you want a public defender, you qualify for one. If not you can represent yourself or hire your own attorney. What do you want to do? … relieve the judge of the need to explain and enforce basic rules of courtroom protocol or to assist the defendant in overcoming routine obstacles that stand in the way of the defendant's achievement of his own clearly

Unincorporated Operating Division of Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Trustees of Indiana University

787 N.E.2d 893 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2003

Therefore, if a public record contains some information which qualifies under an exception to public disclosure, instead of denying access to the record as a whole, public agencies must redact or otherwise separate those … The court held that testimony had sufficiently "establish{ed] the nature of the documents and that they were used for a decision making purpose.

Jacob Lockridge v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

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 … An abuse of discretion occurs if “the decision is clearly 3 This conclusion is not to say that the evidence, which may qualify as depraved sexual instinct evidence, was not inadmissible on other grounds

Indiana Hospital Licensing Council v. Women's Pavilion of South Bend

486 N.E.2d 1070 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1985

The issues for the appeal and the facts surrounding those issues had already been established at trial. … The $23.53 in petty cash clearly comes within the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex. Hull v. Burress (1950), 120 Ind.App. 507 , 93 N.E.2d 213 .

Jay Unger v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2012

But unless he can testify as he’s qualified to make a judgment on that, then he’s not an expert here. Tr. p. 63-66. The trial judge then declined to qualify McShane as an expert. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind. 1999).

Developmental Services Alternatives, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

915 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2009

I also did not find a failure to base it upon substantial and reliable evidence or that it was clearly erroneous on the basis of being contrary to applicable Federal and State law. … Id. at 1284 (footnote omitted) (emphases added). 19 *186 The rule barring post hoe rationalizations as announced in Scheid is now well established in Indiana. See, e.g., 20th Century Fiberglass v.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,, N.A.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2013

The only possible purpose of admitting the Assignment of Mortgage would be to dispute the facts established by the stipulation. … activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony or affidavit of the custodian or other qualified

Alejandro Gomez-Aviles v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2013

To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. … Any erroneously admitted hearsay evidence was cumulative of other evidence in the record, which clearly establishes the corpus delicti, and would amount to harmless error. See Lowery v.

Wilson v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. EMPT. SEC. DIV.

373 N.E.2d 331 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1978

. *336 The Division cites cases which stand for the proposition that when an administrative procedure is established by statute, that procedure is the exclusive manner in which claims or disputes may be heard. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more *338 than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Joseph Lee Smith v. Margie Lee Smith (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2017

The court did not err in attempting to balance the parties’ interests by establishing a realistic payment plan. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1612-DR-2724 | September 1, 2017 Page 14 of 20 [34] The explicit language of the settlement agreement, which was accepted by both parties, states clearly