Case law

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.G. (Minor Child), and N.R.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

61 N.E.3d 1263 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2016

Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005) (emphasizing that reviewing court may set aside trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous). … Id. at 1281. 3 To obtain a termination of the parent-child relationship between Mother and N.G., DCS was required to establish in pertinent part: (A) that one (1) of the following is

Helton v. State

624 N.E.2d 499 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1993

Helton’s conduct is clearly proscribed by the Gang Statute. … Helton has not established any error or prejudice. See Shockley v.

Weenig v. Wood

169 Ind. App. 413 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1976

There was evidence before the jury which established that Weenig published many of the defamations in Indiana. … While the thrust of this qualified privilege is clearly of common law origins, see, e.g., Prosser, supra, at 789, Weenig attempts to raise for the first time in his reply brief the contention that his statements were protected

Lindsey v. State

877 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2007

“An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Anglemyer v. … Here, Lindsey pleaded guilty to the HSO allegation only after the State sought to present certified documents clearly establishing his status as an HSO.

Indiana Employment Security Division v. Ponder

121 Ind. App. 51 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 1950

Both restaurants are equipped for and operated separately as establishments for the preparation and dispensement of cooked food. … It must clearly be presumed that the Legislature intended to abolish a portion of a transfer of an employer’s business when it struck out of the act the words ‘in whole or in part’.”

Cohn v. Strawhorn

721 N.E.2d 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1999

John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996): Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing. … D.Privileges and Immunities Clause of Indiana Constitution Article I, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides: The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which,

State v. Gill

949 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2011

In reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, we reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. at 728-29 . … The State argues that the facts against Gill, as stated in the information, establish that he committed an offense.

Grave v. Kittle

122 Ind. App. 278 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1951

Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Indiana, That if any male or female who now under the law is qualified to execute a will and who, being unmarried, shall execute a will disposing of his or her property … A classification of this kind could not be sustained because it would clearly violate § 23 of the Bill of Rights which provides: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities

Talley v. Review Bd., Emp. SEC. Div.

119 Ind. App. 680 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1949

The legislature clearly intended that one who is receiving a pension from a fund contributed to by his employer, should not at once be eligible to receive unemployment compensation, if such would be chargeable to the experience … account of the same employer who has contributed to the pension fund established for and on behalf of such individual.

Davis v. State

791 N.E.2d 266 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2003

Specifically, Davis maintains that Kinkade was not a qualified expert witness under Indiana Evidence Rule 702. … Clearly, Kinkade’s testimony gave substance to facts that were otherwise difficult to articulate.

Hearing & Speech Clinic of Evansville, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Welfare, Medicaid Division

466 N.E.2d 462 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1984

The hearing officer here clearly had less exposure to case materials than the Board members in Withrow, who had conducted the investigation. … Thus, the Clinic has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the hearing officer was biased. We find no denial of due process. The trial court's decision to uphold the Department's ruling is affirmed.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. First Union Bank & Trust Co.

425 N.E.2d 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1981

It was long ago established in Indiana that a devise to a Masonic Lodge is a devise to charitable uses. Cruse et a l. v. Axtell et al. (1875), 50 Ind. 49 . In State Tax Bd. v. … The evidence presented at trial clearly shows that the Lodge and its affiliate organizations engage in religious, educational and charitable activities. The Temple is used as a site for these activities.

Tom v. Voida

654 N.E.2d 776 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1995

identify relevant portions of the record, 'which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact" [Citation omitted] The burden then rests upon the non-moving party to make a showing sufficient to establish … The Seventh Circuit determined that Voida was "clearly justified in continuing to pursue Tom" after the first physical confrontation. Id. at 961. "By this time, she had more than probable cause to arrest Tom.

Meneses v. Legunes

876 N.E.2d 1161 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2007

As such, we concluded that treatment expenses of a child, re-hospitalized thirty-four days following a normal delivery, do not qualify as birthing expenses. Id. … The presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary. Id. Accordingly, Meneses has the burden of establishing the lack of a rational basis. Id.

Vega v. Review Board

471 N.E.2d 1205 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1984

Vega had clearly established this minimum wage credit requirement. … Vega clearly did not qualify for dependency to Vega because she was still eligible for benefits, whether she actually received them or not. *1209 Vega argues that the dependency statute technically applies because Mrs.

Ground v. State

702 N.E.2d 728 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1998

Nevertheless, the rule unequivocally requires the proponent of business records to establish, by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, that the records are regularly made. As we stated in Cardin v. … If the proponent fails to establish that the evidence falls squarely within the exception, the evidence is inadmissible hearsay.

Weston v. Buckley

677 N.E.2d 1089 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1997

Whether the trial court erred in determining that Buckley’s paintless dent removal process qualified as a trade secret. II. … Prior to establishing the business, Buckley invested a substantial amount of time and effort in investigating the various PDR processes and franchise opportunities.

Endres v. Indiana State Police

794 N.E.2d 1089 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2003

Also, because Endres had taken and passed the requisite tests, he was qualified to request a promotion to the rank of corporal. … Clearly, the religious liberty provisions of the Indiana Constitution were not intended merely to mirror the federal First Amendment.

Stone v. Daviess County Division of Children & Family Services

656 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1995

We will not set aside the findings and judgment of the trial court unless clearly erroneous. … s deposition testimony renders .the trial court's judgment clearly erroneous. Therefore, we find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. SHARPNACK, C.J., and BARTEAU, J., concur. .

Patterson v. State

958 N.E.2d 478 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2011

One such exception was established in Terry v. … For all of these reasons, we conclude that the State sufficiently established that Officer Dotson was qualified to recognize the odor of burnt marijuana.