negative judgment standard in Indiana

2012See LTL Truck Serv., LLC v. Safeguard, Inc., 817 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2012LTL Truck Service, LLC v. Safeguard, Inc., 817 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).

2015Garling v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 766 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

2015Garling v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 766 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2009See In re J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848, 849 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (applying a negative judgment standard of review in considering whether a county office of family and children is required to pay guardian ad litem fees in a CHINS proceeding). *38 Although there are circumstances in which the negative judgment standard of review applies, this is not one of them.

2009See In re J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848, 849 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (applying a negative judgment standard of review in considering whether a county office of family and children is required to pay guardian ad litem fees in a CHINS proceeding).

2025In applying the negative judgment standard, “we defer substantially to the trial court’s findings of fact” and “evaluate questions of law de novo.” Est. of Holt, 870 N.E.2d at 514 .

2025See In re Est. of Holt, 870 N.E.2d 511, 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (under the negative judgment standard, appellate courts “evaluate questions of law de novo”), reh’g denied, trans. denied. [10] To successfully compel arbitration, the moving party must prove two elements.

2019King v. Smith & Wesson, Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222, 1245 (Ind. 2003)). 5 Our supreme court observed that the distinction between the clearly-erroneous standard and the negative-judgment standard is “[a]rguably . . . a distinction without a difference.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [19] Here, Webber contends that there was clear evidence that the building code applied, that Kuebler violated this ordinance, and that her damages resulted from this violation.

2019King v. Smith & Wesson, Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222, 1245 (Ind. 2003)). 5 Our supreme court observed that the distinction between the clearly-erroneous standard and the negative-judgment standard is “[a]rguably . . . a distinction without a difference.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [19] Here, Webber contends that there was clear evidence that the building code applied, that Kuebler violated this ordinance, and that her damages resulted from this violation.

2019See State v. Rucker , 861 N.E.2d 1240 , 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (applying the negative judgment standard to the State's appeal of a grant of a motion to suppress evidence) trans. denied . [22] When D.R. was eight, DCS removed him from his mother's care and placed him with his paternal grandparents.

2019In the [latter], it is whether there is no way the court could have done so.” Town of Brownsburg v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597, 602 (Ind. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).5 It is under this limited standard that we review Webber’s claims of error.

2016See Dunn, 451 N.E.2d at 1123-26 .

2016Id. at 1125- 26.

2016See also Lett v. State, 519 N.E.2d 749, 750 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (citing Dunn for negative-judgment standard after trial court held evidentiary hearing regarding ITCA compliance), reh’g denied, [10] Dunn , then, does not stand for the proposition that all judgments based on noncompliance with the ITCA “are subject to review as negative judgments[.]” Hupp, 576 N.E.2d at 1324 . 1 The negative-judgment standard only applies when the trial court has weighed the evidence and made factual determinations.

2016See also Lett v. State, 519 N.E.2d 749, 750 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (citing Dunn for negative-judgment standard after trial court held evidentiary hearing regarding ITCA compliance), reh’g denied, [10] Dunn , then, does not stand for the proposition that all judgments based on noncompliance with the ITCA “are subject to review as negative judgments[.]” Hupp, 576 N.E.2d at 1324 . 1 The negative-judgment standard only applies when the trial court has weighed the evidence and made factual determinations.

2016See also Lett v. State, 519 N.E.2d 749, 750 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (citing Dunn for negative-judgment standard after trial court held evidentiary hearing regarding ITCA compliance), reh’g denied, [10] Dunn , then, does not stand for the proposition that all judgments based on noncompliance with the ITCA “are subject to review as negative judgments[.]” Hupp, 576 N.E.2d at 1324 . 1 The negative-judgment standard only applies when the trial court has weighed the evidence and made factual determinations.

2016See also Lett v. State, 519 N.E.2d 749, 750 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (citing Dunn for negative-judgment standard after trial court held evidentiary hearing regarding ITCA compliance), reh’g denied, [10] Dunn , then, does not stand for the proposition that all judgments based on noncompliance with the ITCA “are subject to review as negative judgments[.]” Hupp, 576 N.E.2d at 1324 . 1 The negative-judgment standard only applies when the trial court has weighed the evidence and made factual determinations.

2014To be sure, however, whether the negative judgment standard applies does not affect our disposition. 5 Infinity Prods., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028, 1032 (Ind. 2004) (quotations omitted).

2012Therefore, it is appropriate to review this case under the negative judgment standard rather than under the standard of review for the grant of summary judgment. 6 885 N.E.2d 1274, 1278 (Ind. 2008).

2004Cf. City of Dunkirk Water and Sewage Dept. v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind.1995) (setting forth standard of review on appeal from small claims action where plaintiffs-appellees prevailed in small claims court).

2002See Thor Elec., Inc. v. Oberle & Assocs., Inc., 741 N.E.2d 373, 381 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

1985Accordingly, the children do not appeal only the question of whether the judgment is contrary to law (the negative judgment standard), “but also whether the dominant party’s evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment under the clear and unequivocal proof standard.” Id., 471 N.E.2d at 1167 , citing Brock v. Walton (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1087, 1091 (similar principles apply to review of a successful contributory negligence defense).