Case law

White v. Fleming

114 Ind. 560 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1888

That the defendant Nicholas Cornet is the duly elected and qualified auditor of said county and State, and is acting as such. … The complaint in this case, and each paragraph thereof, were clearly insufficient, we think, whether challenged by demurrer below, or by an assignment of error for the first time in this court.

In the Matter of: De.B., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, J.B. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2020

Id. 4 In re E.T. also established that if the business record at issue includes an opinion, the expertise of the opinion giver must be established. 808 N.E.2d at 644. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the resulting judgment. Id.

Henderson v. State

769 N.E.2d 172 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 60 (Ind. 1995)(same injury used to establish class A felony robbery and murder). The defendant's claim qualifies for consideration under this doctrine. … While a failure to find mitigating circumstances clearly supported by the record may imply that the sentencing court improperly overlooked them, the court is obligated neither to credit mitigating circumstances in the same

Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill

377 F. Supp. 3d 924 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2019

Glazer thus clearly has standing to bring this lawsuit. III. … Rather, we read Doe to hold that possible participation in a collateral criminal prosecution is insufficient to establish a connection with the enforcement of the underlying civil regulatory statute.

Clay v. State

440 N.E.2d 466 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1982

Concomitantly, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he qualified for status and sentencing as an habitual offender. … established that the crime charged was theft of a motor vehicle.

Carpenter v. Whitley County Plan Commission

174 Ind. App. 412 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

I dissent from the majority opinion since it has misinterpreted IC 1971, 18-7-5-19 which clearly provides for-a quorum to transact the business of the Commission “at a regular *421 or properly called special meeting. . . … The statute, IC 1971, 18-7-5-19, provides: “QUORUM — Number required for official action. — A majority of members qualified by this chapter (18-7-5-1 — 18-7-5-99) to vote, shall constitute a quorum.

Marcius Strawhorn and HSD of Central Indiana, LLC v. Town of Hillsboro, Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2020

We will set aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake had been made. Id.

Flores v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants argue that the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S.

Artavius G. Richards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2017

[7] In addressing this contention, we note that the admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will reverse only if the decision is clearly against the logic … [8] Indiana Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) provides that a statement that would otherwise qualify as hearsay is not hearsay if the statement is offered against an opposing party,3 3 It is not

Hughett v. State

557 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1990

A sufficient chain of custody was established for State’s Exhibits Nos. 9, 10, 10A, 11 and 12. There was no error in their admission. … Whether a witness is qualified to present expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. Swoaks v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 149 .

In the Matter of M.C. and D.M. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and P.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2017

“A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard.” Id. at 1002. … Mother objected on the basis that Alderman was “not qualified to speak on that,” “was not inside the house,” and “does not know the people who have come and gone.” Id.

In Re the Paternity of C.A. G.C. (Mother) v. T.A. (Father) (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2016

She is qualified to seek licensure here. Mother testified licensure could be completed in 3 months. … Mother’s relocation decision clearly was not made recently.

Pool v. Anderson

1 L.R.A. 712 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1888

The rule as established by the decisions of this court is to the effect that one who writes his name upon the back of a negotiable promissory note, of which he is neither the payee nor endorsee, before it is delivered, in … him liable on the original contract as a surety or joint promisor, while a similar act in respect to a note negotiable as an inland bill subjected the person so signing presumably to the liability, and entitled him to the immunity

Nipsco Indus. Grp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co.

100 N.E.3d 234 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2018

And it generally endorsed NIPSCO's proposal to establish objective ascertainable criteria for selecting specific projects within "project group" categories. … Merely because the Industrial Group could have challenged the TDSIC-3 order, but did not, does not mean the legal methodology that order embraced is immune from legal challenge thereafter.

Ramsey v. State

853 N.E.2d 491 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2006

Thus, the evidence is sufficient to establish that Ramsey has accumulated two prior, unrelated felonies that qualify him as a habitual offender. II. … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.

Turner v. Heckler

592 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 1984

Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act benefits are paid to individuals who establish their “disability” under the Act. … The language emphasized clearly shows that the Seventh Circuit meant to adopt a medical improvement standard.

Spaulding v. Harris

914 N.E.2d 820 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2009

An abuse of dis-eretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Walker v. Nelson, 911 N.E.2d 124, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). … The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of establishing the foundation and reliability of the scientific principles and tests upon which the expert's testimony is based. Id. at 101-02 .

Dickerson v. Turner

12 Ind. 223 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 27, 1859

And, again, says the same author, p. 654, “Where it does not appear that the drawer or indorser has been discharged by the laches of the holder, a qualified promise, taken in connection with the facts and circumstances, has … In a note to the section cited, the author says, that the propriety, and the extent of the application of the rule, have been much discussed, and sometimes questioned, but it seems now to be clearly established.

Bajdek v. Board of Trustees of American Legion Pulaski Post No. 357 Trust

132 Ind. App. 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1961

In my judgment the Post would be entirely within its rights in establishing a trust fund consisting of the assets referred to in the communication for the class of beneficiaries set out therein. … If income is employed solely to further a moral or ethical purpose, the enterprise qualifies for a non profit status. Howard L. deck, NonProfit Corporations and Associations (1956), p. 109.”

Murray v. W. W. Kimball Co.

10 Ind. App. 184 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 1894

It is earnestly insisted by appellants’ counsel, that the averments of this answer clearly show that there never was any delivery of the instruments declared upon; that the said instruments were delivered to ITendee to hold … The rule is also well established that where the delivery was to the grantee or payee of the instrument, it can not be regarded as an escrow, where the condition relied xrpon does not appear on the face of such instru *188