Case law

Tate v. State

835 N.E.2d 499 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2005

To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Merritt v. State, 822 N.E.2d 642, 643 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). … An abuse of discretion is established when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Prewitt v. State, 761 N.E.2d 862, 869 (Ind. Ct.App.2002).

Page v. Board of Commissioners of County of Clay

155 Ind. App. 215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1973

Other medical evidence presented by Page clearly established his traumatic neurosis to be the result of the accident. … Bearing the burden of proof, he presented testimony of two qualified physicians each of whom directly or indirectly concluded that his traumatic neurosis was a result of the accident.

Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds

849 N.E.2d 516 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

The trial court found that “there has been no evidence designated establishing that Dutchmen had actual knowledge of the alleged welding defects in the scaffolding.” … The implications of such a disclaimer as to third party tort claims are not clearly spelled out and as elaborated below, are not made clear by settled judicial precedent.

Brandon McGrath v. State of Indiana

81 N.E.3d 655 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2017

The FLIR Warrant Here, the record clearly supports the conclusion that the police acted in good faith in executing the FLIR warrant. … App. 2009), McGrath has not established that any omission was material.

Evans v. State

751 N.E.2d 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2001

Because this appeal must be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief, Evans bears the burden of establishing his grounds for post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. … Clearly, prosecutors must honor their promises given in exchange for guilty pleas. Harris v. State, 671 N.E.2d 864, 870 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Santobello v.

Matter of Lawrance

579 N.E.2d 32 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1991

West Supp.1990) establishes a local child protection service by county. … At least with respect to the fourth condition, this finding was clearly erroneous.

Anna Wood v. D.W., Minor Child, by next friend, Rhonda Wood

47 N.E.3d 12 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … Evidence Rule 702(a) states, 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 if the expert’s scientific

Davidson v. Boone County

745 N.E.2d 895 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2001

With regard to the negligence claim the defendants in the first place are entitled to government immunity pursuant to Indiana Code, Section 34-4-16.5-3. … Here, the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

Sann v. Mastrian

280 F.R.D. 437 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2011

A claim of work product protection must be made on a document-by-document basis, and the party resisting disclosure has the burden of establishing that the documents qualify as work product. Pippenger v. … numbering each log entry and including the type of privilege or other protection from disclosure (e.p., work product) asserted for each document and a specific explanation of why each document is privileged or otherwise immune

Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co.

217 Ind. 93 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1940

In some of these cases there is qualifying language to the effect that the Legislature may not forbid appeals in all cases so as to render this court impotent. … Where the line is to be drawn between those that may be appealed here as of right and those where appeals may be forbidden by statute has never been clearly suggested.

Griffin v. State

695 N.E.2d 1010 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1998

Furthermore, to qualify for an extension, the unavailability of a witness must simply be due to no fault of the State. Wiseman, 600 N.E.2d at 1377 . 3 . … In any event, this statute merely compels the trial court to grant a continuance in clearly delineated circumstances but does not affect the trial court’s general discretion with respect to such motions. Bates v.

Samper v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

231 Ind. 26 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1952

The retail price for the parts was clearly stated on the receipt and guarantee given the customer. … We are not at liberty to say the appellant could not make his contracts in this manner to qualify as “selling at retail.”

Indiana Department of Child Services v. A.B.

949 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2011

It is acceptable that the legislature has established a process for the state to pay for placement and a process for the county to be ultimately responsible. … But we cannot agree that the new provision is immune from any judicial review whatsoever. It is well established that Article 7 section 4 of the Indiana Constitution confers plenary appellate jurisdiction on this Court.

Spears v. State

735 N.E.2d 1161 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2000

also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.” … the evidence establishing an essential element of robbery as a Class A felony.

Brane v. Roth

590 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1992

We find that the trial court applied the correct standard of care upon the directors as established in I.C. § 23-1-2-11. … Wagers (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 218, 222 , trans. denied (report pre *591 pared specifically for litigation does not qualify under the business record exception).

Griese-Traylor Corp. v. Lemmons

424 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1981

The corporation shows that it has no business establishment, neither hires nor retains employees, solicits no business, and is not qualified to do business in the state of Indiana. … It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized.” 204 F.Supp. at 131-132 .

Walter Havvard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2015

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. … However, we have stated: a police officer or law enforcement official who is offered and qualified as an expert in the area of drugs, drug trade, drug trafficking

Standeford v. Devol

21 Ind. 404 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1863

“Marriage is only a qualified gift to the husband of bis wife’s choses in action, viz: that be reduce them into possession during its continuance,” &c. 1 Bright’s Hus. and "Wife 36; I Kent Com. 122. Says Mr. … This is a very well considered case, in which the law is clearly stated, and is strictly in point with the one before us.

Rector v. State

256 Ind. 634 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1971

With his competency established by legislative enactment, however, (Acts of 1873, ch. 107, § 1, re-enacted by Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 235, 1956 Repl. Burns Ind. … It follows logically that he, in his capacity as a witness should be accorded the same immunities as other witnesses, included among them that his character may be proven only by general *649 reputation, and not by specific

Eric L. Carter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2015

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 … We cannot say that Carter has demonstrated that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.