Case law

Antonio Rush v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2012

Kentucky, however, the United States Supreme Court qualified that principle to preclude the use of peremptory challenges to exclude venirepersons from a jury solely on the basis of race. 476 U.S 79 (1986), modified by Powers … Thus, we reverse only where the trial court‘s decision is clearly erroneous. Id.

Antwan Rush v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2012

Thus, we reverse only where the trial court‟s decision is clearly erroneous. Id. … Rush‟s observations, though accurate, nonetheless fail to establish that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., Sierra Club, and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2014

The Commission’s findings and conclusions on this issue are not clearly erroneous. Citizens Action Coalition, 894 N.E.2d at 1065-66. … In short, Interveners seek nullification of the Modified Agreed Settlement without establishing that the approval was contrary to law.

Dustin B. Crabtree v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2020

These facts qualify the Defendant as one of the worst of the worst offenders who did “the most heinous thing a dad could do.” Appellant’s App. Vol. … [54] We look to the statutory range established for the classification of the offense. The jury found Crabtree guilty of child molesting, a Level 1 felony.

Wilhelm Construction, Inc. and J.C. Riberger Construction Corporation v. Secura Insurance, a Mutual Company and Davenport Masoney, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 24 2017, 8:32 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Wilhelm-Ripberger Contract entered into between Wilhelm and Ripberger. 3 The Ripberger-Davenport Contract provides the specific types of insurance which much be provided by Davenport, but does not clearly

Timothy J. Taylor v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

Clearly, the trial court would have been amenable to sustaining an objection if one had been made and offered to admonish the jury. … To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be a clear and substantial blatant violation of basic and elementary principles which renders the trial unfair to the defendant. Townsend v.

Matthew Thies v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 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 clearly goes to the part of her credibility, and Judge, for that basis we ask you to reconsider. (Tr. 308-09).

Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Indiana Michigan Power Company and Steel Dynamics, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2014

The substantial evidence standard authorizes this court to set aside the Commission’s findings of fact only when a review of the whole record clearly indicates the agency’s decision lacks a reasonably sound … McCoy stated that while it is true that the Company made no pension contributions, it is also true that total qualified pension plan cost for the period was slightly negative for this period. Mr.

Donald W. Campbell v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Feb 28 2013, 10:00 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, … Moreover, the only testimony that clearly constitutes uncharged misconduct evidence was about Campbell “pinn[ing]” Loretta to the bed, and the court’s admonishment of Loretta outside the presence of the jury suggests the

Heidemarie Garcia v. Cover-Rite, Inc., J.C. Builders, Inc. and Salvino Verta

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 23 2014, 10:17 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … Builders only for $4,600.00 plus court costs. 14 Garcia’s deception claim is the only one of her claims that would qualify for a request for treble damages and attorney fees under INDIANA CODE § 34-24-3-1.