Case law

Indiana State Board of Education v. Brownsburg Community School Corp.

865 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2007

, as long as the student is qualified to participate in the class. … In essence, the ISBE asserts “that the trial court violated the well established rule that a remand to the agency is ordinarily the sole remedy, even where the agency has acted contrary to law.” Appellant’s Br. p. 25.

Senn v. State

766 N.E.2d 1190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2002

Clearly, the purpose of this bill was to clarify, not change, our decision in Dish roon. Thus, I believe Palmer, to the extent that it disagrees with our holding in Dishroon, is incorrect. … State, 756 N.E.2d 581, 583 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, this court held: In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, our supreme court has established a two-part test.

Fadell v. State

450 N.E.2d 109 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1983

Other contradictions in Gligor's testimony pointed out by Fadell likewise fail to establish any perjury. Fadell is not entitled to reversal on this basis. *115 IL. … The title "Waiver of Immunity" might, by some stretch of the imagination, have misled jurors.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Sohio Petroleum Co.

170 Ind. App. 123 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1976

Whether the trial court’s finding that the taxpayers overpaid the Department by $51,864.96' and its judgment in that amount were clearly erroneous. … And the Department lacks statutory authority to establish rules that add or detract from the Act.

Prock v. Town of Danville

655 N.E.2d 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1995

Thus, the Plaintiffs did not qualify under the annexation statute to file a remonstrance to challenge the Town's annexation portion of Ordinance No. 5. … Thus, the Shrouts clearly did not have standing to pursue an action for declaratory relief challenging the annexation.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Kevin Prosser

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2019

If Prosser established that it did, he may be issued a permit to install a concrete seawall. If Prosser failed to establish that it did, his application was properly denied. II. … he has been prejudiced by a decision that is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Wallace v. Meadow Acres Manufactured Housing, Inc.

730 N.E.2d 809 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2000

Godish was not qualified to render ultimate expert opinions on medical causation. … Godish admits that he is unable to identify any peer-reviewed articles or journal articles reporting an established half-life or definite decay rate for formaldehyde. 36. Dr.

Dolen Glenn v. Dick Brown and Indiana Department of Correction

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2014

given that qualified immunity that may protect the named Defendants from alleged violations of federal constitutional rights. … immunity.

Welch v. Young

950 N.E.2d 1283 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2011

On appeal, Welch makes no independent arguments concerning governmental immunity or premises liability. … As to the golfer’s errant drive that resulted in Pfenning’s injury, “such conduct is clearly within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers and thus is reasonable as a matter of law and does not establish the element of

Butrum v. Roman

803 N.E.2d 1139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2004

A child may not qualify for emancipation under one of the subsections yet may meet the requirements for emancipation under another. See Borders, 800 N.E.2d at 591 . … The trial court's finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous.

Pleasant School Township v. Fultz

79 Ind. App. 27 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1922

From this brief statement of facts it clearly appears that a right result has been reached. It is expressly provided in §350 Burns 1914, §345 R. … It is well established by many authorities that, where there are special findings and conclusions of law, any error in overruling a demurrer to the pleading is immaterial. Woodward v.

Kyle L. Doolin v. State of Indiana

970 N.E.2d 785 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances. N.W. v. State, 834 N.E.2d 159, 161 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. … A panel of this court upheld the trial court’s decision that the police officer was a qualified expert because he testified that: (1) he was trained to administer the test; (2) he followed the proper procedures; (3) the

Healey v. State

969 N.E.2d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

In so doing, we assess the following factors, established by the United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. … An allegation that a trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported by

Sumbry v. Misc. Docket Sheet for the Year 2003

811 N.E.2d 457 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

The trial court concludes: "[als in Parks, [Sumbry's] 'propensity towards endless litigation warrants the unusual step of establishing a screening mechanism to forestall frivolous lawsuits." … Here, Sumbry clearly attacks the validity of his convictions in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber

182 Ind. App. 133 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1979

finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: “(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or “(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … It is well established that the substantial evidence test cannot be utilized to assay the ‘reasonableness’ of the conclusions of ultimate fact inferred by an agency from its findings of basic fact. See, e. g., NLRB v.

UTLX Manufacturing, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development

906 N.E.2d 889 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2009

. 1C §§ 22-4-11-2(a), (e) An employer's experience account is charged when a qualifying employee receives unemployment benefits based upon unemployment with that employer. … Therefore, the Department clearly acted within this four year time period.

Benefield v. State

904 N.E.2d 239 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2009

An abuse of discretion occurs if "the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances." Id. … Had Benefield's forgery had its intended effect, she would have been working in a healthcare position for which she was not legally *249 qualified.

Everett Powell v. Indiana Real Estate Commission (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2020

Injunctive relief should only be granted in the rare instances in which the law and the facts are clearly within the moving party’s favor. Id. … Powell has not established an inexcusable delay. IREC did not discover the full extent of Powell’s misconduct until he was disbarred in 2017.

State v. Hammans

870 N.E.2d 1071 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2007

If either the applicant’s income or the value of the applicant’s resources is too high, then the applicant does not qualify for Medicaid. Sanders v. State Family & Soc. Servs. … Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Moritz v. State

465 N.E.2d 748 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1984

The refused question was purely conjectural, and Trimpe admitted he was testifying in exchange for immunity. … Clearly orders (f), (g) and (h) apply to Counts 5 and 6, for which Moritz was found not guilty. We will confine the remainder of our discussion to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4.