Case law

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

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.

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.

Sink & Edwards, Inc. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.

458 N.E.2d 291 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1984

Furthermore, Sink failed to establish an inequality in bargaining. … There is nothing in the present case to establish a disparity in bargaining power between Sink and Huber. Sink failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Searcy v. Manganhas

415 N.E.2d 142 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1981

It said: “The general rule is that expert medical testimony is required to establish the content of such ‘reasonable disclosure’ unless the situation is clearly within the realm of laymen’s comprehension as where the disclosure … As such, he was not qualified to testify as to the standard practice of either a surgeon in Munster or a family practitioner in East Chicago in 1973.

Gertz v. Estes

922 N.E.2d 135 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2010

Even though this finding is clearly erroneous, we conclude that the error is harmless. … Because the fence is now six feet tall, the Gertzes argue that it no longer qualifies as a "spite fence" and that they should not be required to remove it.

St. Anthony Medical Center, Inc. v. Smith

592 N.E.2d 732 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 1992

To establish an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s ruling must be clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances, as well as the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. … Betty asserts that two separate and distinct occurrences of malpractice were established; and therefore, the verdict was within the limit of the Act.

Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden

699 N.E.2d 301 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1998

When Howard was employed by United Technologies Automotive (UTA), *303 he established and funded a “UTA Savings Plan Account” (Plan). … Here, through the property settlement agreement, Judith clearly indicated her agreement to accept half of the Plan proceeds.

C.B. v. B.W.

985 N.E.2d 340 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2013

But, as Mother also notes correctly, that finding is qualified by the following language: “Especially since the child has no siblings with Mother currently, and the sibling with Father given the evidence.” Id. at 7, 12. … Here, it was Father who filed a petition to establish paternity.

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.

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.

McElroy v. State

592 N.E.2d 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 1992

Agent Deadman clearly established what the standard procedures for DNA identification were. He also established he and his assistant followed standard procedure in the instant case, without any deviation. … At that point, they clearly placed the victims in fear. Soon thereafter, they forced the victims to the floor.

Conrad v. State

747 N.E.2d 575 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2001

This provision imposes two requirements upon statutes granting unequal privileges or immunities to differing classes of people. … Additionally, this case is clearly distinguishable from Kellett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 975 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), cited by Conrad.

Howard v. Robinette

122 Ind. App. 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1951

electricity for public use, such as street lighting and public buildings, and water for fire protection and for use in public buildings, the municipality was exercising a governmental function. *72 The courts of this state have clearly … While it is true, that grants of legislative authority do not confer on municipalities the power to operate the facilities of a power plant in total disregard of the private rights of others, and with complete immunity for

Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co.

96 Ind. App. 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1932

Most of the evidence is not in conflict and it establishes the following facts, to-wit: That the appellant had a general checking account in the appellee bank in a sum in excess of $235.00; that on March 23, 1929, while said … Clearly the California case is not in point on the controlling questions of the instant case.

Hanson v. State

704 N.E.2d 152 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1999

We will not disturb a trial court’s determination that a witness is qualified to testify as an expert absent an abuse of discretion. Burkett v. … It is well-established that possession of property may be actual or construc-five. State v. Hill, 688 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind.App.Ct.1996).

Stewart v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

545 N.E.2d 7 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1989

The school board contends that they were more qualified than Stewart because they had classroom teacher's licenses. … The language of rule 2 clearly stated that personnel "shall be properly certified".

Hay v. Baumgartner

870 N.E.2d 568 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2007

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions … In establishing whether the findings or the judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to. be drawn therefrom. Id.

Ines Garcia Perez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2020

In order to be persuasive, a claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence was both significant and clearly supported … that “the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.”

Certain Northeast Annexation Area Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne

622 N.E.2d 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1993

In general, facts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken, are unalterably and finally established as part of the law of the case and may not be … We are faced with a factual determination that was established in the prior proceedings and was clearly part of the judgment entered. Cunningham, supra at 676 .