Case law

Timothy Haigh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2019

“The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Id. … The trial court limited the testimony to basic facts establishing the timeline of events.

Lay v. State

12 Ind. App. 362 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1895

But in the case at bar the proof clearly showed that for a number of years this ground had been set apart, though not in the statutory mode, and used as a public cemetery. … Dedication of a cemetery, like dedication of a public street or highway, may be established by user. Redwood Cemetery Association v. Bandy, 93 Ind. 246 .

Sherwood v. State

241 Ind. 215 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1960

The appellants claim error because upon the disqualification of special judge Walter Pritchard he submitted a panel of qualified attorneys from which a special judge was to be chosen, instead of remanding the case to the … NOTES [1] "Since the fact that testimony is given pursuant to a promise of immunity or leniency may have a bearing upon the weight to be given it, there is no question as to the right of the defendant to have the fact that

Kleihege v. State

206 Ind. 206 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1934

No. 5, so far as it is material to the question here involved, reads as follows: “In order to establish the existence of a conspiracy it is necessary for the state to prove a combination of two or more persons by concert … The foregoing brief reference to the testimony of the only witness directly connecting appellant with the crime charged does not warrant this court in saying that appellant was clearly, and conclusively guilty of the charge

John E. Moriarity and Mae E. Moriarity v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2019

To the contrary, we have a well-established rule to deal with these situations: “[u]ndefined words . . . are given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning.” … It clearly knows how to define words for the Act, see 312 Ind. Admin. Code 1-1- 21(a) (2018), http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03120/A00010.PDF?

Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Turner

241 Ind. 73 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1960

If appellant had cause previously to invoke Rule 1-13, it is our opinion that appellant waived its right to claim the benefit of such rule, as the record shows clearly appellant voluntarily, filed his suggested findings and … December 1, 1954; and (b) did appellee continue to practice in Indiana during that period; and (c) the question raised by appellee as to whether said statute requires practice in Indiana or does practice any other place qualify

Abner v. Department of Health Ex Rel. Indiana Soldiers' & Sailors' Children's Home

777 N.E.2d 778 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2002

In the trial court’s order, it concluded that Employees “clearly seek relief from an unsatisfactory condition of employment, specifically the State’s policy of not paying them for time spent sleeping.” … However to qualify for exemption from the exhaustion requirement, Employees’ administrative remedy must be inadequate or futile, which it is not.

Green v. Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company

204 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 1962

It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized. See 26 I.L.E. Statutes § 175 (1960). … Co., 20 Ind.App. 515 , 51 N.E. 143 (1898) (facts not given; appeared to be only solicitation; clearly no office in state); Memphis & C. Packet Co. v.

South Newton School Corp. Board of School Trustees v. South Newton Classroom Teachers Ass'n

762 N.E.2d 115 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2001

grant relief from an administrative determination if the determination is: arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … This court endeavors to give statutory words their plain and ordinary meaning absent a clearly manifested purpose to do otherwise. Peele v. Gillespie, 658 N.E.2d 954, 958 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (1996).

Mathis v. State

859 N.E.2d 1275 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2007

Admission of Evidence Mathis first argues that the trial court erred by admitting Officer Kunz's testimony regarding what Cook told him because Cook's statements to the officer were inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify … An abuse of discretion occurs "where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances." Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.2001).

State v. Williams

156 Ind. App. 625 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1973

involves receipts and profits, that is another thing, but I think that for him to just generally say that he is familiar with what goes on into the area before he is permitted to testify about that then he must be more qualified … There are, however, well-established exceptions to the general rule.

Christopher Alexander d/b/a Crystal Tiger Holdings, LLC v. Djuric Trucking, Inc. and William H. Walden, as Special Representative of the Estate of Mark Phillip Sikorski (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2019

Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 20 2019, 8:56 am court except for the purpose of establishing … We will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Eunice McKibben v. Jeff Hughes, b/n/f Joyce Hughes

23 N.E.3d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2014

In March or April of 2010, McKibben helped Hughes qualify for Social Security benefits. … It denied Hughes’ request to rescind the deed for the Property, finding that Hughes had failed to establish that McKibben owed him a fiduciary duty and, as a result, had acted fraudulently.

Beene v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Services

528 N.E.2d 842 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1988

The program clearly delineated which absences would be exempt, counted, or unexcused and gave the employee three warnings before discharge would occur. … Thus, the Employer established a prima facie case of discharge for the violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule, which was not sufficiently rebutted by Beene.

Jacqueline K. Durham v. Brandon D. Scott, Adam J. Scott, Raymond E. Decker, and Dianne J. Decker (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2016

“A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way … As we already noted, a judgment on the pleadings is proper only if the pleadings alone “clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts and allegations therein.”

Indiana State Ethics Commission, Office of Inspector General, and David Thomas, in his Official Capacity as Inspector General v. Patricia Sanchez

18 N.E.3d 988 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2014

We will affirm the Commission unless its conclusions are clearly erroneous. Id. The Trial Court Should Have Affirmed the Commission’s Decision. … Thus, finding no precedential support for her arguments, we decline Sanchez’s invitation to depart from our well-settled allocation of the burden of proof. 5 established

Justin S. Johnson v. State of Indiana

62 N.E.3d 1224 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2016

At the modification hearing, the case manager testified that Johnson originally moved to the work release center until he qualified for support through the Bloomfield Housing Authority and that he “seemed … We also believe that well- documented mental limitations or illness as presented in this case, and which are clearly shown in the record, are relevant and deserve careful consideration as a mitigator

Storen, State Treas. v. Sexton, Marion Co. Treas.

209 Ind. 589 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1936

In the light of its historical background, its purpose is clearly apparent. It is a mutual insurance project, designed to provide immediate funds in lieu of frozen deposits. … It is contended that the act is in conflict with article 1, section 23, of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides that: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities

CHINS: K W v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

The court overruled Mother’s objection, finding that Nurse Practitioner Beatty qualified as an expert and therefore could base her opinions on the imaging. … A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

BRODHEAD V. KOKOMO CITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2020

immunity. … City of Chi., 829 F.3d 869, 877 n. 10 (7th Cir. 2016) ("The defendants alternatively argue that we should affirm based on qualified immunity.