Booth et al. v. Town of Newburgh

6 Citing cases

  1. Horlock v. Oglesby

    249 Ind. 251 (Ind. 1967)   Cited 14 times

    It is not the province of appellate courts to 5. weigh evidence. We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee together with any reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom to determine whether the decision is sustained by sufficient evidence within the standard of proof required by law. A.S.C. Corp. v. First National Bank (1960), 241 Ind. 19, 167 N.E.2d 460; Booth v. Town of Newburgh (1958), 237 Ind. 661, 147 N.E.2d 538; Emmons v. Dinelli (1956), 235 Ind. 249, 133 N.E.2d 56. The evidence most favorable to appellees is discussed herein above and is sufficient to sustain the decision of the trial court.

  2. Matter of Adoption of Thomas

    431 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 38 times
    Adopting the trust concept

    " (Emphasis supplied.)Horlock v. Oglesby, (1967) 249 Ind. 251, 231 N.E.2d 810, 815; A.S.C. Corp. v. First National Bank of Elwood, (1960) 241 Ind. 19, 167 N.E.2d 460; Booth v. Town of Newburgh, (1958) 237 Ind. 661, 147 N.E.2d 538; Emmons v. Dinelli, (1956) 235 Ind. 249, 133 N.E.2d 56. To avoid a forest of quotation marks, we summarize Indiana law in the area of natural parental rights and their termination.

  3. Town of Kewanna v. Hollis

    420 N.E.2d 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)

    In such a proceeding, the burden is upon the party seeking the vacation to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that justice required the vacation as prayed. Booth v. Town of Newburgh (1958), 237 Ind. 661, 147 N.E.2d 538. "Justice," in this connotation, has been defined by reference to the grounds prescribed for a remonstrance under IC 1971, 18-5-10-45 — by successfully resisting the grounds of the remonstrance, the petitioners have established the "justice" of their petition. McClurg v. Carte, Inc. (1970), 255 Ind. 110, 262 N.E.2d 854. Because the proceeding for the vacation of an alley is a creature of statute, IC 1971, 18-5-10-44, State v. Reeves (1957), 237 Ind. 240, 144 N.E.2d 707, the only grounds for objection which can be recognized by the court are those specified in the statute.

  4. Citizens of Unincorporated Town v. Gore

    409 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)

    The petitioner is not left to speculate on the potential injuries of unknown persons. It is noted that the phrase, "persons particularly interested therein and who shall be affected thereby" has commonly been interpreted to include non-abutting property owners who have suffered a special injury. Booth et al. v. Town of Newburgh (1958), 237 Ind. 661, 147 N.E.2d 538; Southern R. Co. v. Town of French Lick (1913), 52 Ind. App. 447, 100 N.E. 762; Falender v. Atkins (1917), 186 Ind. 455, 114 N.E. 965. These cases, however, concerned the class of individuals who are entitled to object to the vacation proceedings and recover damages therefore, but the cases do not address the question of which individuals should be listed in the vacation petition. In Correll v. Dearmin (1927), 86 Ind. App. 349, 156 N.E. 407, the appellants were non-abutting property owners who alleged, among other issues, that they should have been included in the vacation petition.

  5. Allstate Insurance v. Morrison

    146 Ind. App. 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 20 times
    Holding the garnishee waived its challenge to personal jurisdiction because it "chose to submit its person to the jurisdiction of the trial court by answering interrogatories and filing a motion for new trial, attacking only the merits of the decision"

    In this regard it is elementary that a 2. reviewing court will consider only the evidence most favorable to the Appellee and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Isenhour v. Speece, 238 Ind. 293, 150 N.E.2d 749 (1958); Booth v. Town of Newburgh, 237 Ind. 661, 147 N.E.2d 538 (1958); Pokraka v. Lummus Co., 230 Ind. 523, 104 N.E.2d 669 (1952); General Electric Co. v. Fuelling, 142 Ind. App. 74, 232 N.E.2d 622 (1968); Alliance Lumber Coal Co., Inc. v. Hill et al., 142 Ind. App. 497, 235 N.E.2d 717, 14 Ind. Dec. 49 (1968); and Freeman v. King, 141 Ind. App. 655, 231 N.E.2d 161 (1967). Likewise, a reviewing court will disregard conflicting evidence and assume that evidence to support the finding is true and will give it every inference reasonably and favorably to be drawn from it.

  6. Pryor v. Marino

    224 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    We must consider only that evidence and the inferences therefrom most favorable to the verdict where the 1. assignment questions its sufficiency. Isenhour v. Speece, Admr., et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 293, 296, 150 N.E.2d 749; Booth et al. v. Town of Newburgh (1958), 237 Ind. 661, 663, 147 N.E.2d 538. We find that although the evidence is in conflict, it is ample to support the verdict.