party claiming error in Indiana

1973The conduct complained of does , not transgress the standards set out in White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N. E. 2d 312 , where Justice Prentice stated that the burden is on the party claiming error to show that he was harmed and that this may be done by showing that the aggrieved party was placed in a position of grave peril by the conduct complained of.

1973The conduct complained of does , not transgress the standards set out in White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N. E. 2d 312 , where Justice Prentice stated that the burden is on the party claiming error to show that he was harmed and that this may be done by showing that the aggrieved party was placed in a position of grave peril by the conduct complained of.

2025Under that standard, the party claiming error on appeal following the entry of a judgment against them on an issue for which they had the burden of proof must show that “the evidence as a whole . . . leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the trial court.” Town of Brownsburg v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597, 601 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied, abrogated on other grounds by Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998), reh’g denied, cert. denied) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Under that standard, the party claiming error on appeal following the entry of a judgment against them on an issue for which they had the burden of proof must show that “the evidence as a whole . . . leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the trial court.” Town of Brownsburg v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597, 601 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied, abrogated on other grounds by Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998), reh’g denied, cert. denied) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2001Membership Corp. v. Fischer, 697 N.E.2d 83, 91 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (noting that a party claiming error in the giving of an instruction is limited to his stated objection at trial), trans. granted and affirmed, 716 N.E.2d 357 (Ind.1999).

1991Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 , this court held: “In cases involving large numbers of documents or where the nature of the document will not likely be readily appar *474 ent on its face to the uninitiated observer, the proponent of the ... protection must present the matter in camera to the court in a reviewable form which itemizes each document, provides á factual summary of its contents, and justification for withholding it_ [The] disclosure ... must be so complete and understandable [that] the trial court need not (but may at its option) do any further research or review of other papers o

1991Id.

1991Carrier Agency v. Top Quality Building Prod., Inc. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 739, 744 , trans. denied.

1990Id.

1990Id.

1988Peavler v. Board of Comm'rs of Monroe County (1986), Ind.App., 492 N.E.2d 1086 ; Dettman, supra. Instructions are to be considered as a whole.

1988Peavler v. Board of Comm'rs of Monroe County (1986), Ind. App., 492 N.E.2d 1086 ; Dettman, supra .

1988Peavler v. Board of Comm'rs of Monroe County (1986), Ind.App., 492 N.E.2d 1086 ; Dettman, supra. Instructions are to be considered as a whole.

1988Peavler v. Board of Comm'rs of Monroe County (1986), Ind. App., 492 N.E.2d 1086 ; Dettman, supra .

1986Lowery, supra. Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) sets out the procedure to be used by the party claiming error when either a part or the entire transcript is unavailable or a This rule allows in part that, "a party may prepare a statement of evidence of proceedings from the best possible means, including his recollection." In Ruetz v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 42 , 373 N.E.2d 152 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 897 , 99 S.Ct. 261 , 58 L.Ed.2d 245 , we addressed the same issue before us now and held it is not a denial of due process to require compliance with Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) when part of the record of proceedings

1986Lowery, supra. Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) sets out the procedure to be used by the party claiming error when either a part or the entire transcript is unavailable or a This rule allows in part that, "a party may prepare a statement of evidence of proceedings from the best possible means, including his recollection." In Ruetz v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 42 , 373 N.E.2d 152 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 897 , 99 S.Ct. 261 , 58 L.Ed.2d 245 , we addressed the same issue before us now and held it is not a denial of due process to require compliance with Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) when part of the record of proceedings

1986Lowery, supra. Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) sets out the procedure to be used by the party claiming error when either a part or the entire transcript is unavailable or a This rule allows in part that, "a party may prepare a statement of evidence of proceedings from the best possible means, including his recollection." In Ruetz v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 42 , 373 N.E.2d 152 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 897 , 99 S.Ct. 261 , 58 L.Ed.2d 245 , we addressed the same issue before us now and held it is not a denial of due process to require compliance with Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) when part of the record of proceedings

1986Lowery, supra. Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) sets out the procedure to be used by the party claiming error when either a part or the entire transcript is unavailable or a This rule allows in part that, "a party may prepare a statement of evidence of proceedings from the best possible means, including his recollection." In Ruetz v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 42 , 373 N.E.2d 152 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 897 , 99 S.Ct. 261 , 58 L.Ed.2d 245 , we addressed the same issue before us now and held it is not a denial of due process to require compliance with Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) when part of the record of proceedings

1986Lowery, supra. Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) sets out the procedure to be used by the party claiming error when either a part or the entire transcript is unavailable or a This rule allows in part that, "a party may prepare a statement of evidence of proceedings from the best possible means, including his recollection." In Ruetz v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 42 , 373 N.E.2d 152 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 897 , 99 S.Ct. 261 , 58 L.Ed.2d 245 , we addressed the same issue before us now and held it is not a denial of due process to require compliance with Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(C) when part of the record of proceedings

1985Sellersburg Vol. Fire Dept., Inc. v. Edwards, (1984) Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 508 .

1982See Dunn, supra; Ohio Casualty, supra. This is unlike the situation which may arise when only a portion of the record has been requested and additional parts must be transmitted to substantiate claimed error.

1978Ogle v. Wright (1977), 172 Ind. App. 309 , 360 N.E.2d 240 .

1978Ogle v. Wright (1977), 172 Ind. App. 309 , 360 N.E.2d 240 .

1975Final Instruction No. 27 reads as follows: “The Court instructs you that a passenger in an automobile has the duty to warn the driver of a danger of which the passenger is aware, but a passenger may ordinarily rely on the assumption that the driver of the automobile will exercise proper care and caution and such passenger need not voluntarily keep a lookout for approaching automobiles.” In the case of Adkins v. Elvard (1973), 155 Ind. App. 672 , 294 N.E.2d 160 , Chief Judge Robertson set out the test to be used on appeal when instructions are questioned: “In deciding whether an instruction is

1975Final Instruction No. 27 reads as follows: “The Court instructs you that a passenger in an automobile has the duty to warn the driver of a danger of which the passenger is aware, but a passenger may ordinarily rely on the assumption that the driver of the automobile will exercise proper care and caution and such passenger need not voluntarily keep a lookout for approaching automobiles.” In the case of Adkins v. Elvard (1973), 155 Ind. App. 672 , 294 N.E.2d 160 , Chief Judge Robertson set out the test to be used on appeal when instructions are questioned: “In deciding whether an instruction is

1973Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N.E.2d 146 ; Merriman v. Kraft (1969), 253 Ind. 58 , 249 N.E.2d 485 .

1973Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N.E.2d 146 ; Merriman v. Kraft (1969), 253 Ind. 58 , 249 N.E.2d 485 .

1973Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N.E.2d 146 ; Merriman v. Kraft (1969), 253 Ind. 58 , 249 N.E.2d 485 .

1973Cato Enterprises, Inc. v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N.E.2d 146 ; Merriman v. Kraft (1969), 253 Ind. 58 , 249 N.E.2d 485 .

1889In that case the party claiming the privilege was attending court within the jurisdiction of his residence.” Very much the same ruling as that announced by Chief Justice Cooley was made by the Court of Appeals of New York, in Matthews v. Tufts, supra, where it was said: “In Van Lieuw v. Johnson, decided March, 1871, and referred to in Person v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 124 , a majority of this Court were of opinion that a summons could not be served upon a defendant, a non-resident of the State, while attending a court in this State as a party.

1889In that case the party claiming the privilege was attending court within the jurisdiction of his residence.” Very much the same ruling as that announced by Chief Justice Cooley was made by the Court of Appeals of New York, in Matthews v. Tufts, supra, where it was said: “In Van Lieuw v. Johnson, decided March, 1871, and referred to in Person v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 124 , a majority of this Court were of opinion that a summons could not be served upon a defendant, a non-resident of the State, while attending a court in this State as a party.