Case law

Lakhvir Singh v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2014

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 Jun 13 2014, 6:31 am of establishing the defense of res … address this argument because, even if Singh was entitled to an interpreter, he has failed to demonstrate that fundamental error 2 The rule was amended effective January 1, 2014, and now provides: “An interpreter must be qualified

James R. Belcher, Sr. v. Sandra G. Belcher

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Dec 31 2013, 8:48 am establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … Thus, it was clearly the trial court’s intent to effect a fifty-fifty distribution.

Bruce A. Craig v. Cynthia E. Craig

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2012

The trial court‟s findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … The trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.

Lawrence Ray Holley, II v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2012

Webber recalled being granted use immunity for some or all of his testimony at Holley’s trial but could not recall the prosecutor in that case making any remarks about Webber’s pending charges. … Standard of Review In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Helton v.

Cody E. Reynolds v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2020

[15] After the interview, the interview team met with Tricia to establish a plan to protect the girls. … [60] To assess whether a sentence is inappropriate, we look first to the statutory range established for the class of the offense.

Dave's Excavating, Inc. v. City of New Castle

959 N.E.2d 369 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2012

Notice: If CONTRACTOR [Dave’s] believes that any subsurface or physical condition at or contiguous to the Site that is uncovered or revealed either: 1. is of such a nature as to establish that any “technical data” on which … The facts in Paden are clearly distinguishable.

Eads v. Community Hospital

909 N.E.2d 1009 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2009

Therefore, if Eads's malpractice claim is to be rescued by the Journey's Account Statute, she must establish, among other things, that her malpractice claim is a continuation of the Negligence Complaint. … Enacted in 1975, the MMA set up a system under which a health care provider meeting qualifications set forth in the MMA ("Qualified Provider") would enjoy *1017 certain benefits, including a limitation on liability.

Todd Slavin v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2012

An abuse of discretion is a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … A document does not need to be open and available to the public in order to qualify for admission under the public records exception. Id. (citing 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick On Evidence § 295 (6th ed. 2006)).

Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2014

The trial court abuses its discretion only where its decision regarding the admission of evidence is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court has misinterpreted the … The evidence was sufficient to establish both Buelna’s participation in the manufacture of methamphetamine at the house and to establish that Buelna manufactured more than three grams of pure or adulterated methamphetamine

Hann v. Hann

655 N.E.2d 566 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1995

Moreover, nonqualified but fully vested plan assets (i.e., "nonqualified deferred compensation" or "457 plan assets") remain subject to forfeiture and are nevertheless routinely divided pursuant to qualified domestic relations … Clearly, there is no guarantee of forfeiture upon an employee's termination. *573 Once again, reality in the world of the ISOP is that unless the plan participant was terminated as a result of poor performance or misconduct

Terry Berry v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 26 2013, 5:22 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … “‘[W]here a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise,’” we will not reverse the conviction. Johnson v. State, 959 N.E.2d 334, 338 (Ind. Ct.

Timothy Alex Lear v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2013

We will reverse only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … First, he argues that Detective Dike stated “a medical opinion which he is not qualified to give.” Appellant’s App. p. 158.

Jeffery Alholm v. Rebecca (Alholm) Allen

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2012

FILED 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 Jul 30 2012, 9:13 am establishing the defense … Only one of the post- dissolution court’s findings denominated as such, finding paragraph 76, qualifies as a finding of fact relevant to the modification of custody.

Micronet, Inc. v. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

866 N.E.2d 278 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2007

The FCC has stressed the purpose of a service in determining whether a service qualifies as a basic service or an information service. … In the Reconsideration, we found Dial-it to “constitute more than the common carrier offering of a channel of communication and [therefore to] clearly fall outside the scope of a basic service.”

In the Matter of the Guardianship of: M.A.M.J., a minor Diana Sullivan v. Katherine Ashley Oliver

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 06 2013, 5:35 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … (b) With respect to persons having equal priority, the court shall select the person it considers best qualified to serve as guardian.

David Delong v. Kim Delong

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2013

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 Apr 16 2013, 8:27 am of establishing the defense of res … Again, “[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Id.

Lasater v. House

805 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2004

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 if the court has misinterpreted the law. Johnson v. … Evidence Rule 702 provides as follows: (a) If 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

Kathay Van Dyne v. IOM Health Systems LP, d/b/a Lutheran Hospital of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2013

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 Jul 19 2013, 10:36 am the defense of … Lomax, 465 N.E.2d at 734-35 (describing examples offered by the patient of claims that would be subject to the Act if the Act were construed to apply to every claim by a patient against a qualified health care provider

Anessa B. Bennett v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2014

This court held that “[t]he dissent clearly establishes that a 7(B) review ‘is more expansive and may consider more than simply a “re-look” at the appropriate aggravators and mitigators.’” Id. … It recognized a Blakely violation and found that only [Bennett’s] criminal history qualified as a proper 33  aggravator.

Frances Ashton v. City of Indianapolis

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2013

Despite reviewing Ashton’s version of events, Deputy Chief Pierce concluded that “Ashton was insubordinate because she clearly ignored directives that Sergeant Hoenstine gave to her. … This is substantial evidence establishing Ashton’s insubordination.