Case law

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.

Michelle D. Gauvin v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2014

A court does not need to find evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a factual basis for a plea. Id. at 77. … Gauvin’s Guilty Plea At the plea hearing, Gauvin’s counsel questioned her to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea.

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company v. Technicolor USA, Inc

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2025

And any policy exclusions must clearly and unmistakably “bring within its scope the particular act or omission that will bring the exclusion into play.” PSI Energy, Inc. v. Home Ins. … This distinction is important because the insured bears the initial burden of establishing that a claim is within the policy’s insuring provisions. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.

Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC, f/k/a Helena Chemical Company v. Robert M. Jones, Mark A. Jones, and Jones Farms

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2020

Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise … “We cannot invade the province of the jury to decide the facts and cannot reverse unless the verdict is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Annee v.

Rueth Development Company v. Power-Rueth & Associates, Donald S. Powers, Margret F. Powers

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

“Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper [Trial] Rule 56 evidence.” Logan, 728 N.E.2d at 858. … However, there is no corresponding common law rule establishing a fiduciary duty owed by limited partners.

Oo Aka v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2013

“To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.” Kien, 866 N.E.2d at 385. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Myers v. State, 718 N.E.2d 783, 789 (Ind. Ct.

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2018

court held: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1710-PC-2555 | June 27, 2018 Page 22 of 36  [A] police officer or law enforcement official who is offered and qualified … Memorandum Decision 27A02-1710-PC-2555 | June 27, 2018 Page 35 of 36  Conclusion [59] Based on the facts and circumstances before us, the post-conviction court did not clearly

Richard B.E. Spoon v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before May 28 2013, 9:30 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … 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. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied.

Curtis E. Jones v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 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. … It is well-settled that a finger qualifies as an “object” for the purposes of deviate sexual conduct. See Harwood v. State, 555 N.E.2d 513, 515 (Ind. Ct.

Riehle v. State

823 N.E.2d 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2005

A trial court abuses its discretion when its evidentiary ruling is clearly against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. at 1053-54 . Moreover, the fundamental error doctrine is extremely narrow. Howard v. … To qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Id.

Alexander A. Lopez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2012

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only if it clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. … In order to qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Mitchell v.

Hitt v. Carr

62 Ind. App. 80 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1915

As already shown, it is not averred that “Rósela” and “Drusilla” are idem sonans, .nor that appellee was commonly'known as “Rósela,” but it is clearly averred that the process was issued against “Rósela” and served on Drusilla … and extent of appellee’s possession and the use and control of the land by her and such members of her family under her directions, and were competent as a part of the res gestae of the continuing act of possession, to qualify

Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2012

is of such a nature as to establish that any “technical data” on which CONTRACTOR is entitled to rely as provided in paragraph 4.02 is materially inaccurate; or 2. … The facts in Paden are clearly distinguishable.

Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2012

Appellants must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous, which occurs only when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … The parents shall make every effort to establish a reasonable parenting time schedule.

Linda S. Bergal v. David A. Bergal and Joseph M. Sanders, as Successor-Trustee of the Milton B. Bergal Trust

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2020

But there are no material differences relevant to this case between the version in place in 1891 and the version in place today. 12 Clearly, given the case name, Rickert was a case in which an estate … She does not explain why the verdict form qualifies as such, nor does she cite to specific portions of the forms as evidence of her contention. [57] The forms were entitled “Verdict Form.”

Beatriz Morales v. Housing Authority of South Bend and Attorney General of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2014

(c) Notice of the defendant's right to a jury trial, and the ten (10) day period in which to file for a jury trial, shall be clearly stated on the notice of claim or on an additional sheet to be served with … section does not prohibit a court from reviewing and modifying a finding of indigency by the court or a clerk if a person who received relief from the payment of required fees or other court costs ceases to qualify

Pond v. McNellis

845 N.E.2d 1043 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2006

The court, in the original decree, clearly expressed, by the manner in which it phrased its order for fees, that the same was issued for the benefit of [Pond]. *1050 2. … "[T]o qualify as a bona fide purchaser, one has to purchase in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the outstanding rights of others." Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v.

Michael C. Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2014

The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and we accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.3 Dickens v. … Testimonial statements by a person who is absent from trial are prohibited even if they qualify for a state hearsay exception. Fowler v.

Dana Banks v. Evans Limestone Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

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 … Indiana Code section 22-3-4-11 provides that a Single Hearing Member “may . . . appoint a disinterested and duly qualified physician or surgeon to make any necessary medical examination of the employee and to testify in

In the Matter of the Finding of Contempt Against Tad Bohlsen During the Proceedings of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Dickson Street Investments, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2014

(f) If the person appointed under subsection (d) is an attorney and not a regular judge, and if that person consents to serve, the person shall be qualified as other judges. … Bohlsen seems to argue that all of this establishes that the trial court prejudged his guilt and that the contempt hearing was therefore a mere formality.