Case law

Strong v. Delaware County

976 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

Brooke are qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, nor has he shown that their reasoning and methodologies are reliable. See Ervin v. … “Even an employer’s erroneous decision making, exhibiting poor business judgment, is not sufficient to establish pretext.” Abioye v. Sundstrand Corp., 164 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir.1998).

In Re Adoption of MAS

815 N.E.2d 216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2004

In November 2002, Father filed an action to establish paternity of M.A.S. On January 8, 2003, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt M.A.S., and Father objected to Stepfather's petition. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and the circumstances. In re A.C., 770 N.E.2d 947 , 951 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

Mark Benner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2017

The statute clearly does not limit the criminal offense to a person who is currently in a professional relationship. … [17] Benner has failed to establish that the statute, as applied to him, is vague.

Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

681 N.E.2d 800 · Indiana Tax Court · May 22, 1997

Section 29.3 stands as an alternative exemption for taxpayers unable to qualify for the “original package” exemptions provided in sections 6-l.l-10-29(b) 1 and 6-l.l-10-30(a), (b), and (c). 2 Although there are important … section provides: (c) Personal property that is manufactured in Indiana and that would be exempt under subsection (b), except that it is not stored in its original package, is exempt from property taxation if the owner can establish

Johnson v. State

952 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2011

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … In Wilson and Moseby, we clarified that either a judge or a member of a judge’s staff may qualify as the “proper officer” since I.C. § 35-33-5-2(a) specifies “with the judge.” Wilson v.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.C., Mother, D.C., Father, and D.C., D'A.C., Da.C., and K.C., Children, K.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2019

Specifically, Mother asserts that the exhibits did not qualify as business records and were, therefore, not admissible under that exception. … [37] Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the juvenile court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children was clearly erroneous.

Hawkins v. State

884 N.E.2d 939 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Such an abuse occurs when the “decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. … The trial court, within its discretion, determines whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion. Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 338 (Ind.1996).

Willie L. Montgomery v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2013

This clearly is not such a case. App. R. 14(D) is a catch-all provision, governing “other interlocutory appeals [that] may be taken only as provided by statute.” … R. 14(B) governs interlocutory appeals not qualifying under App. R. 14(A) Subsection (B) provides that other interlocutory appeals (i.e., those that do not qualify under App.

Gary Amick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Mar … Indiana Code Section 12-23-8.1-4 provides: The court may deny the request if after conducting a presentence investigation the court finds that the individual would not qualify

Davon Nathaniel Jones v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2025

“We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Redding v. State, 244 N.E.3d 477, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). … [26] The State argues that none of the evidence Jones challenges here qualifies as evidence of another crime, wrong, or other act for purposes of Rule 404(b).

Easterday v. Easterday

105 Ind. App. 80 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1937

She qualified as executrix of the will. Appellant was the second childless wife of the testator. … And if his estate was clearly solvent that his widow would be entitled to such $500 out of the first moneys received by the executrix of his estate. Sec. 6-711 Burns 1933, Sec. 3077 Baldwin’s 1934.

Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, and Madison City Board of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2019

is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … the same factors and circumstances and reached a different decision. 6 6 Intervenors argue that White Barn’s application for a conditional use permit should have been denied because it qualified

GIBSON v. INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2020

Gibson responds that the damages she seeks will not necessarily be paid by the state, so sovereign immunity does not apply. Dkt. 118 at 11–14. … Gibson cannot establish the third element—causation, dkt. 101 at 19– 21. ISPD contends that Ms.

Fike Investments, LLC v. Gregory L. Wilson, Sr., Executive Director of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2025

The Ultimate Authority affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Fikes do not qualify for the exemption from application of the IFHA. … App. 2013) (applying plain language of I.C. § 23-18-3-3(a) to determine whether evidence established that employee of LLC requested firm’s services on his own behalf or if he requested firm’s services on behalf

A.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2020

“A decision is an abuse of discretion if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. at 169. … whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Omans v. State

412 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1980

Clearly Debbie was reluctant to express the incident in all its sordid details. In fact she admitted that she was embarrassed about testifying. … Although she had a limited sexual vocabulary Mary clearly established what happened to her. To hold otherwise would involve reweighing the evidence.

Owens v. State

911 N.E.2d 18 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2009

The evidence favoring the conviction, including the testimony of the C.I., clearly establishes that Owens gave the C.I. cocaine in exchange for twenty dollars. … This evidence established that Owens delivered cocaine to the C.L, and Detective Duckworth's testimony established that the delivery took place within 1,000 feet of a youth program center.

Cochran v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2000

These regulations establish what constitutes an adequate warning device for projects installed with federal funds. … Whether the crossbuck installed at C.R. 400 N was the same crossbuck originally installed with federal funds in 1976 is immaterial because it clearly met the federal standard of adequacy established for that crossing by virtue

Barrett v. Sipp

50 Ind. App. 304 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1912

It is true that in the case quoted from, the attack on the complaint was first made by assignment of error in that court, but Judge Mitchell in the opinion does not limit or qualify his words quoted to an attack on the complaint … Dollman, supra, said: ‘ ‘ The general rule in regard to the application of payments seems to be well established, that the payor and debtor owing two or more debts to the same creditor or payee, may direct the application

Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Champion

9 Ind. App. 510 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1894

When the facts which he was required to prove were established, they overcame the presumptions in favor of appellant. It is next insisted that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction: “11. … If the testimony sought to be elicited by the witness was competent, his previous examination discloses that he was qualified to testify on the subject.