Case law

Gray v. State

159 Ind. App. 200 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1974

EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GUILT OF DEFENDANT Gray argues that the State failed to prove that the pistol he carried was loaded. … State (1932), 203 Ind. 241, 245 , 179 N.E. 718 , clearly implies that the Supreme Court possessed that power long before the new judicial article was ratified by the voters.

Kroger Co. v. Haun

177 Ind. App. 403 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1978

That determination is not to be made solely on the basis of the user’s own statements but rather upon the jury’s assessment of all of the facts established by the evidence. … The situation at hand fails to qualify under either condition. Haun *421 had a right to expect that Kroger would maintain properly-functioning equipment for his use until sufficient notice to the contrary was received.

Geramy Ridley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2012

to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Sep 17 2012, 9:01 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … 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.

George Sanders v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012

In evaluating these claims, we use the following two part test: (1) whether the unraised issues are significant and obvious from the face of the record; and (2) whether the unraised issues are clearly stronger than the … The trial court has discretion to decide whether a witness qualifies as a representative pursuant to Evid.

Undray D. Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2012

DISCUSSION AND DECISION The standard of review in appeals from post-conviction negative judgments is well- established. … It therefore would not qualify for admission under Post–Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(4). We accordingly address only whether subsequently-discovered testimony by Quentin Abbott permits a new trial.

John Doe v. K. M. W.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2024

Therefore, the foreseeability analysis for premises claims arising from harmful activities has been clearly articulated. … And we “will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. B.

Derek Dwane Hardy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2012

For all of these reasons, we cannot conclude that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that the report does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … The claimed error must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. Id.

Zar Dyson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2014

In our view, this evidence is sufficient to establish the communication of a threat. … detainee while statutorily mandating credit time for a postsentence home detainee amounts to a violation of the detainee’s equal protection rights as well as his rights under the Indiana Constitution’s equal privileges and immunities

Hector Laguna v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Oct 15 2014, 10:13 am any court except for the purpose of establishing 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.’” Id. (quoting Greenboam, 766 N.E.2d at 1250).

Breondon D. Pinkston v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … The trial court, within its discretion, determines whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion. Id. at 944.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Wiegand

808 N.E.2d 180 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2004

If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly exeluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. … The reliability of the scientific principles need not be established, but the trial court must be provided with enough information to proceed with a reasonable amount of confidence that the principles used to form the opinion

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. v. Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

983 N.E.2d 160 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2012

Although there is an exception if a storm is extraordinary, Foster did not believe that the ice storm qualified as an extraordinary storm. Id. at 273. … Although the better practice would have been for the IURC to clearly articulate why it reached different conclusions, we find that the updated evidence presented at the second hearing justified the IURC’s decision to deny

Garrett Bridges Chaffin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2020

He does not dispute that she was qualified to testify as an expert on domestic violence issues. Instead, Chaffin claims portions of her testimony were irrelevant. … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Paul v. State, 971 N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. Ct.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of L.L., and R.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

Hershberger opined that Father was “reasonably qualified” to care for L.L. Ex. G. He also had no concerns that Father was at risk of abusing L.L. Dr. … However, his testimony at the termination hearing clearly establishes that he participated in them before that time while incarcerated at Westville. 12 Although Father testified

K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison

609 N.E.2d 17 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1993

While several of Morrison's experts testified directly that Morrison was permanently totally disabled within the meaning of the Act, these opinions were not based on evidence found in the record and were qualified by conditional … The court in Rockwell, supra, at 1040 , interpreted this passage and stated that "(als this statutory section clearly indicates, it is payments made by the employer which are subject to a credit, not payments made by an insurance

Diamond Z. Wittlief v. Tom Franklin Hirschauer, III (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2020

Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. … Subsequent-born or Legally Adopted Child(ren),” and makes no mention of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2647 | October 23, 2020 Page 21 of 35  any other custody arrangements that would qualify

Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc.

777 N.E.2d 1110 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2002

Vojvoda, 662 N.E.2d 985, 990-91 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (permitting officer to testify as to who was at fault in a car accident because he qualified as an expert based on his training, education, and experience); Osmulski v. … The only portion of the statutory definition of “user or consumer” that could include Vaughn in the present circumstances is that which includes “any individual who uses ... the product,” because Vaughn clearly did not purchase

In Re the Marriage of: Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2012

A party challenging a trial court’s findings must establish that they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous only when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. Id. … The Guidelines clearly place bonuses within the general definition of “Weekly Gross Income.”

David Garden and Star Homes, Inc. d/b/a Garden Homes Realty v. Lucas International, LLC and Wade Lucas

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2013

Moreover, no fixed rules or standards have been established because the circumstances of no two cases are alike. Id. … ” that “[n]onetheless, Smith ignored his mail, including the summonses and motion for default,” that “[w]e do not agree that the failure of Smith to read his mail amounts to a breakdown in communication sufficient to qualify

Aaron Michael Toller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2019

this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 25 2019, 10:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing … State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 821-22 (Ind. 2002) (recognizing that impact on others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases where a defendant’s actions had an impact “of a destructive nature that is not normally