Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser

7 Citing cases

  1. Lesniak v. Ind. State Emps. Appeals Comm'n

    171 N.E.3d 1073 (Ind. App. 2021)

    [11] In reviewing an agency's order, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser , 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Our supreme court has described our standard of review as follows:

  2. DCG Services, Inc. v. Indiana Department Of Natural Resources

    No. 20A-PL-1972 (Ind. App. Apr. 23, 2021)

    [¶12] In reviewing an agency's order, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser, 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied (2020). Our supreme court has described our standard of review as follows:

  3. A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

    No. 20A-MI-1975 (Ind. App. Apr. 9, 2021)

    We do not try the case de novo, reweigh the evidence, judge witness credibility, or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser, 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (citing Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-11), trans. denied. We are bound by the agency's findings of fact if those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

  4. Indiana Department of Child Services v. J.M.

    No. 20A-MI-1117 (Ind. App. Dec. 21, 2020)

    State v. Carmel Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., 660 N.E.2d 1379, 1384 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser, 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied. Further,

  5. J.R. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs.

    233 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. App. 2024)

    For the purposes of judicial review, "[s]ubstantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but something less than a preponderance of the evidence." Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser, 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied; accord Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Watson, 938 N.E.2d 672, 680-81 (Ind. 2010).

  6. Criswell v. Carter

    No. 22A-MI-2253 (Ind. App. Apr. 26, 2023)

    [¶13] As for Daniel's other claim for relief, that the ISP Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, he must show that the evidence amounts to less than "a scintilla." Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser, 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (quoting State v. Carmel Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., 660 N.E.2d 1379, 1384 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996)).

  7. Ind. Bd. of Pharmacy v. Elmer

    171 N.E.3d 1045 (Ind. App. 2021)

    "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but something less than a preponderance of the evidence." Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Prosser , 132 N.E.3d 397, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied (2020). "Reviewing courts must consider the record in the light most favorable to the administrative proceedings, and may not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses."