Case law

Carey v. State

180 Ind. App. 516 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1979

Both the motion to correct errors and the appellant’s brief on appeal clearly indicate the facts constituting the alleged error. No one was misled. … The presentation of this statement to the jury clearly would require disclosure of the informant’s identity under the GloverMcCulIey rule.

Curler v. City of Fort Wayne

591 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 1984

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection. … At trial it was established, both through the testimony of Mr.

Alan E. Dewitt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2016

As properly determined by the trial court, Deputy Zeider’s training and experience qualified him as an expert witness. … Clearly each offense is established by different elements.

Lane v. Frankfort Community Schools Building Trades Corp.

747 N.E.2d 1172 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2001

local governments could choose among several methods for providing firefighting services, in Ayres our supreme court reasoned that because the function or service involved was uniquely and exelusively governmental, it was "clearly … "; and noting that immunity under the Tort Claims Act was not at issue because IWC did not claim it). .

Simpson v. Rokita

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 10, 2024

and not Plaintiff; and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, she accuses Defendants of “falsifying the outcome” of Lampkin and, through their briefs, engaging in a “conspiracy and reckless-wanton denial of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established 14th amendment [sic] civil rights

Bemis v. Guirl Drainage Co.

182 Ind. 36 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1914

But the determination is subject to a review by the courts in cases clearly showing an appropriation for a private purpose in a particular instance. 1 Elliott, Roads and Sts. (3d ed.) §§212, 213, 224, 391; 2 Lewis, Eminent … Constitution, against granting special privileges and immunities.

Spaulding v. Mott

167 Ind. 58 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1906

The highway to be improved was thirty-three feet wide, and the order of the board following the viewers’ report established the width thereof at thirty-six feet. … This brings the case clearly within the rule. 16.

S. R. v. M. J.

71 N.E.3d 436 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

We will not set aside the findings or the judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. The trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them. … The adoption court, however, made an initial determination that Mother had sufficient income and did not qualify for appointed counsel.

Brent Myers v. Jarod Coats

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

The undisputed facts here establish that the DOC determines whether an incarcerated individual belongs on the Registry and also handles complaints about mistaken sex offender registrations. … J. concur 5 Having found this issue dispositive, we need not address the parties’ arguments concerning whether Coats’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations or whether Myers is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pendergrass v. State

913 N.E.2d 703 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2009

After concluding that the certificates were ―quite plainly affidavits,‖ the Supreme Court held that the affidavits clearly fell within ―testimonial‖ evidence because they ―are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony … Although the State Police laboratory is qualified to create a DNA profile, it apparently is not qualified to conduct a paternity analysis. Tr. at 127.

Angleton v. State

686 N.E.2d 803 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1997

“The determination of whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion is within the trial court’s discretion.” Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 338 (Ind.1996). … We do not find the questions themselves placed defendant in grave peril because Leisure had already clearly testified to numerous facts which would allow the jury to infer Cheryl was scared and terrified and clearly stated

McNicholas v. Johnson

612 N.E.2d 569 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1993

McNicholas is disabled, cannot work outside the home, and is infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS [Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome]. He has been diagnosed as having AIDS. Mr. … Special findings will be reversed on appeal only if they are clearly erroneous.

Baker v. Lee

901 N.E.2d 1107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2009

They contended that Lee lacked standing to pursue visitation with the Children after the adoption because (1) he was no longer a "grandfather," and (2) he had not previously established visitation rights under the Grandparent … We find that Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-9 clearly permits grandparent visitation to survive adoption of a child by another biological grandparent.

Demos v. City of Indianapolis

126 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 2000

The regulation clearly states that the pay-docking system of public employers must be “established pursuant to principles of public accountability.” 29 C.F.R. § 541 .5d. … The Seventh Circuit clearly allocates to the employer the burden of establishing whether an employee fits within an exemption to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA.

Hollingsworth v. State

907 N.E.2d 1026 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2009

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. at 587 (citations omitted). … Hollingsworth also contends that the State failed to establish which subsections of the Arkansas statute he had violated and that as a result the trial court could not have determined that the Arkansas and Indiana statutes

Steven and Kathy Chambers, Stephen and Elizabeth Driscoll, and Perry and Tonya Evans v. Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, and Rhett and Alan Light (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2020

The court concluded that “[t]his language clearly indicates that hog raising operation[s], in barns, are a permitted use. … decision only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Jackson v. Hoover

26 Ind. 511 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1866

By a series of adjudications, certain rules have been established to aid in the proper construction of wills. These, as stated by Mr. … Beclfield states the rule on the subject of transposition thus: “ There is no more clearly established rule of construction, as applicable to wills, than that words, or clauses of sentences, or even whole paragraphs, may

Zechariah Brian James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

121 N.E.3d 139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2019

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if it misapplies the law. Id. [8] In Kubsch v. … Assuming for the sake of argument that the issue was waived, James has not met his burden of establishing fundamental error.

Pennington v. State

821 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2005

Pennington further claims that the trial court cited other aggravators that he asserts "do not qualify as egregious or heinous facts" which would justify an enhanced sentence. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating cireumstance requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana

9 N.E.3d 663 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2014

In other words, to establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that, under the circumstances, the trial judge erred in not sua sponte raising the issue because alleged errors (a) "constitute clearly blatant violations … Such correct statement so distanced from an improper one cannot qualify its sub- stance, but it may counteract its harm.