Case law

Jody Michael Brooks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2016

clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process” and (b) “present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” … Brooks again claimed that Woodson’s statements qualified as excited utterances.

McIntyre v. Medaris

612 N.E.2d 1068 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1993

When findings of fact and conclusions of law are requested by the parties, as occurred here, we will not set aside the trial court's judgment unless the judgment is clearly erroneous, that is, unless we are firmly convinced … Pursuant to 1C. § 31-3-1-4, as soon as a petition for adoption is found to be in proper form, the clerk must forward a copy of the petition to the state department of public welfare, one copy *1070 to a qualified agency as

Browne v. Ciobanu

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2025

These examples, which are a few of many, clearly demonstrate that the facts and issues currently before this Court were already presented to Judge DeGuilio in the prior litigation. … The Amended Complaint does not offer a qualifying crime, let alone any facts allowing the Court to discern one. It merely recites select portions of the CVRA.

Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Craig Goergen

Indiana Tax Court · Oct 17, 2025

Nonetheless, the Court also noted that a non-attorney’s expertise in the assessment process does not make them qualified in the practice of law, specifically referencing constitutional claims as a type of issue that qualifies … Some of Grossman’s claims appear to be constitutional in nature and clearly constitute the practice of law.

Robertson - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT ONLY CERTAIN FILINGS v. West

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 2019

Only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 1 (1) Robertson v. Spears, 1:15-CV-1405 (S.D. … He knows he must pre-pay the $400 filing fee unless he files a complaint clearly alleging he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ma.J. and My.J. and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

972 N.E.2d 394 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2012

Mother and Father are not married, but Father‟s paternity of the twins has been established, and as of September 10, 2009, Mother and Father were living together. … Discussion and Decision When reviewing a trial court‟s order terminating a parent-child relationship, we will not set it aside unless it is clearly erroneous. Castro v.

White v. State

846 N.E.2d 1026 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 3, 2006

In the instant case, the record clearly supports that House purchased the property for use as a permanent residence. … To qualify as fundamental, an error "must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm, or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process."

Jiggetts v. Arkmark

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2023

Jiggetts indicates this happened before he was confined, but that is impossible since he was clearly an inmate at the jail when this happened. It is most likely he was a pretrial detainee. … However, for a pre-trial detainee to establish a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, “it will not be enough to show negligence or gross negligence.” Miranda v.

Athena Y. Collins v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2012

establish the lesser included offense, then the lesser included offense is inherently included in the crime charged. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law. Id.

Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Craig Goergen

Indiana Tax Court · Oct 17, 2025

Nonetheless, the Court also noted that a non-attorney’s expertise in the assessment process does not make them qualified in the practice of law, specifically referencing constitutional claims as a type of issue that qualifies … Some of Grossman’s claims appear to be constitutional in nature and clearly constitute the practice of law.

Comm'r, Indiana Department of Insurance v. A.P.

121 N.E.3d 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

A.P. filed a reply arguing that his misdemeanor battery conviction did not constitute a qualifying offense to revoke his license because it was not a misdemeanor in which an element of the offense involves violence under … While we do not attempt to establish the boundaries of the occurrences in which an element of a misdemeanor offense involves violence, we cannot conclude that the Commissioner was unreasonable in determining that A.P.'

Eppler v. Eppler

837 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2005

Husband's Income When we review the calculation of a parent's income, we will not reverse the trial court's finding unless it is clearly erroncous. Naggatz v. … form of financial aid, a proportion that has remained large and relatively constant, at least since the time of the Class of 1976, in order to make the extraordinary benefits of a Harvard education accessible to anyone who qualifies

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.C., Mother, and Z.R. and J.R., Children, B.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2017

With Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1702-JT-339 | August 25, 2017 Page 5 of 17  regard to housing, Mother did not qualify for assisted housing because of two prior evictions … A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id.

Davis v. LeCuyer

849 N.E.2d 750 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2006

First, Indiana’s General Assembly long ago made the public policy decision to establish Indiana as a modified, comparative fault state. … They do not address the duty owed by an adult entrusted with the care of another’s child, as Johnson clearly does. Hence, we find the Stones’ in loco parentis argument unpersuasive.

Anastasia Blanchard v. HRC Hotels, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2025

[16] To be clear, Blanchard didn’t argue in the trial court, and she doesn’t argue on appeal, that Schroeder isn’t qualified as an expert under Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) (“A witness who is qualified … “Absent factual evidence, negligence cannot be supported by an inferred chain of events[,] and inferential speculation alone cannot establish negligence.

Horn Farms, Inc. v. Veneman

319 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 20, 2004

The standards a court employs in reviewing a motion for summary judgment are well-established. … The issue is whether the Plaintiffs 6.2 acres of converted wetland qualifies for the exemption as prior-converted wetland.

Blaker v. Young

911 N.E.2d 648 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2009

Clearly, the doctors' opinions on which Blaker relies are based on speculation and conjecture, not the facts established by the designated evidence in this case. *652 Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to provide … Clearly, the court did not base its grant of summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause.

Darlage v. Drummond

576 N.E.2d 1303 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1991

His estate was opened on April 22, 1983, with Jane Speer, Joseph's sister, qualified as the executrix under Joseph's will. The will named Cheryl and Joseph's two children as the sole devisees. … neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the witnesses' credibility; rather, we view only the evidence that supports the judgment, and will uphold the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value establishing

Craig v. Fed Ex Ground Package System, Inc.

722 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 2010

FedEx asserts that the undisputed evidence establishes the plaintiffs could present a claim and would receive a full and fair review of any such claim. … The court found that the “[defendants clearly preserved their right under ERISA to exclude from eligibility individuals classified as independent contractors.” Id.

Starks v. State

517 N.E.2d 46 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1987

The record clearly supports the trial court's refusal to give appellant's Tendered Instructions Nos. 5 and 6. *53 Appellant claims the trial court erred by refusing his Tendered Instruction No. 4 regarding "missing witnesses … Appellant claims the trial court erred in first ruling that he was entitled to 617 days credit for his incarceration in Indiana; however, the court qualified this holding by stating that appellant would not receive such credit