Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,284 results
1.35s
Brian McGill v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2013
Furthermore, even if McGill would have established that the deputy prosecutor’s statement amounted to improper vouching, McGill has failed to establish that the deputy prosecutor’s statement placed him in a position of … As a result, McGill qualifies as a habitual offender. McGill’s claim to the contrary essentially amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIndiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012
Thus, expert testimony must be supported by appropriate validation or “good grounds” based on what is known establishing a standard of evidentiary reliability. Id. … The trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case, or if it misinterprets the applicable law. Id. at 976.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJames McDuffy v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2014
As a result, McDuffy qualifies as an habitual offender. McDuffy’s claim to the contrary amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. … Thus, some of the evidentiary facts establishing the elements of Class A felony conspiracy to commit kidnapping also established all of the essential elements of the Class A felony kidnapping.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIndiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2013
The trial court clearly relied on both Fry’s mathematical calculations and his underlying assumptions. … We express no opinion as to whether waiver has in fact been established.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCharles Poling v. Property Owners Insurance Company
Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2014
Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Feb 13 2014, 9:56 am establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … In making the above-stated allegations, Poling requested that the trial court appoint a qualified person as an Umpire pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished953 N.E.2d 1094 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2011
To invoke this doctrine, the matters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of an opinion. Id. … There is no evidence in the record, nor does Stalker direct us to any, establishing that at the moment Pierce decided to demolish the home, she was acting as a member of the Board of Health.
Cited 1 timesPublishedAaron Edward Belcher v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2013
In addition to establishing the grounds for the misconduct, Belcher must also demonstrate that it rose to the level of fundamental error. Id. … Belcher maintains that this language—specifically the last two sentences—must be construed as clearly (if indirectly) denigrating remarks designed to portray defense counsel as a liar.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGary Oswalt v. State of Indiana
995 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2013
There are no limits on the number of for-cause challenges, but each must be supported by specified causes or reasons that demonstrate that, as a matter of law, the venire member is not qualified to serve. Id. … We will reverse a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion where the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Reeves, 938 N.E.2d at 14.
Cited 1 timesPublishedIndiana Court of Appeals · May 14, 2012
precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED May 14 2012, 8:39 am establishing … However, it appears from argument of counsel at the motion to correct error hearing (and Father’s apparent concession) that Father is no longer considered a qualified individual to act as representative payee.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIndiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012
The court refused to allow the Trucking Company to ask Nurse Dispenza that question, stating that “[s]he’s not qualified to give that opinion.” Id. at 420. Dr. … A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRonald D. Hayes v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2013
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 11 2013, 5:48 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJordin C. Shoda v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2019
A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. … [47] The McClain court noted that, in order to qualify as a statement made to promote diagnosis or treatment, “there must be evidence that the declarant understood the professional’s role in order to trigger
Cited 0 timesPublishedLouis Shepherd, Jr. v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2013
“Determining whether a statement constitutes an excited utterance is essentially a factual determination subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review, sometimes described as the functionally equivalent standard of … It is clear that she called Emily beyond the “one half-hour after the ‘startling event’” that the Court identified in Davenport as qualifying under the excited utterance exception “only under extreme and continuing stress
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRobert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2013
Bowen claims that he qualified for appointed counsel because he was indigent, and the assets he had were not liquid and using them to obtain counsel could impose substantial hardship on himself and his family. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMartin Cenfetelli v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2013
If the Defendant fails to qualify for, or is rejected from Community Corrections for any reason or at any time, the Defendant shall serve the remaining balance on Community Corrections at the Department of … court may impose whatever sentences it deems appropriate except said sentences shall be served concurrently with 1 The State argues that Paragraph 6 does not directly address the available terms of probation, but it clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAgustin Martinez v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012
FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 05 2012, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … R. 702(a), “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedScott W. Schwichtenberg v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2012
“To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Merritt v. State, 822 N.E.2d 642, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Benson v. … We note that the fundamental error exception to the waiver ruler is an extremely narrow one that is available only when the record reveals clearly blatant 7 violations of
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKamal El-Adnani v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2012
court may abuse its discretion by: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) entering a sentencing statement that is not supported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly … Each of these injuries qualifies as serious bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-41-1-25. The State was only required to prove two separate types of serious bodily injury to sustain the instant convictions.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIndiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2014
The Defendants also asserted that the Board’s actions were immunized by the Nonprofit Corporations Act, and summary judgment was warranted on Dr. Kohlhaas’s claims against those serving on the Board. … Kohlhaas asserts that “[w]hile the Articles clearly provide that the Board has the authority to alter or amend the Rules, those Articles also require that they must take official action to do so” and that “[s]imply agreeing
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedWillie J. Bailey v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2019
Evidence obtained without a warrant and in a circumstance that does not qualify as an exception to the warrant requirement is not admissible. Holloway, 69 N.E.3d at 930. … Bailey also argues the search warrant affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the Old Stone Address and suspected criminal activity.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna