two step analysis in Indiana

2020Second, we determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2020First, the juvenile court must “ascertain what conditions led to their placement and retention in foster care.” K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013).

2020In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643 .

2018In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014).

2003First, “where the legislature singles out one person or class of persons to receive a privilege or immunity not equally provided to others, such classification must be based upon distinctive, inherent characteristics which rationally distinguish the unequally treated class, and the disparate treatment must be reasonably related to such distinguishing characteristics.” Id. at 78-79 .

1999When analyzing an equal privileges claim under Article 1, Section 23, this Court applies a two step analysis as established in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (Ind.1994).

2020Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 11. [12] “In addressing a claim of an unconstitutional denial of procedural due process, we undertake a two step analysis.” Larry v. Lawler, 605 F.2d 954, 957 (7th Cir. 1978).

2017“The court first identifies the conditions that led to removal and then determines whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” In re A.W., 62 N.E.3d 1267, 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014)).

2015Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458, 468 (Ind. 2012).

2014“When reviewing whether the State has violated Article I, Section 9, we employ the following two- step analysis.” Id. (citing Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363, 1367 (Ind. 1996)).

2014Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind. 2002).

2013Instead, the court recognizes a two- step analysis to determine if the trash is searchable: First, the “trash must be retrieved in substantially the same manner as the trash collector would take it.” Second, the search must be based on an “articulable individualized suspicion that illegal activity is or has been taking place, essentially the same as is required for a ‘Terry stop’ of an automobile.” Fuqua, 984 N.E.2d at 714 (citations omitted).

2012Humphries v. Ables, 789 N.E.2d 1025, 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Smith v. Brown, 778 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2 In regards to landscaping, Callahan asserts that he would not have had a company “bulldoze and level out and smooth out” a piece of land had he known that a portion of it was actually on Riggs’s property.

2012Humphries v. Ables, 789 N.E.2d 1025, 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Smith v. Brown, 778 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2 In regards to landscaping, Callahan asserts that he would not have had a company “bulldoze and level out and smooth out” a piece of land had he known that a portion of it was actually on Riggs’s property.

2003Missi v. CCC Custom Kitchens, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 1037, 1039 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2000Brown v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 445 (Ind.1998).

1996In order to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the court must engage in a two step analysis: “(1) determine what the first judgment decided; and (2) examine how that determination bears on the second case.” Webb v. State, 453 N.E.2d 180, 183 (Ind.1983), reh. denied, cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1081 , 104 S.Ct. 1449 , 79 L.Ed.2d 767 (1984) (citing United States v. Mespoulede, 597 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1979)).

1996“First, we look to see if the sentence seems to be disproportionate.” Mayberry v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1262, 1270 (Ind.1996).

1996First, we look to see if the sentence seems to be disproportionate, i.e., “manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Fointno v. State, 487 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind.1986).

1996First, we look to see if the sentence seems to be disproportionate, i.e., "manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." Fointno v. State, 487 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind.1986).

1992See Aschliman v. State (1992), Ind., 589 N.E.2d 1160, 1162 ; Holder v. State (1991), Ind., 571 N.E2d 1250, 1256, Rogers v. State (1979), Ind., 272 Ind. 65 , 396 N.E.2d 348, 354 .