de novo standard in Indiana

2020Indiana State Univ. v. LaFief, 888 N.E.2d 184, 186 (Ind. 2008).

2015Ind. State Univ. v. LaFief, 888 N.E.2d 184, 186 (Ind. 2008). [22] In Indiana, an individual is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits if he/she was discharged for “just cause.” I.C. § 22-4-15-1(a).

2011But a de novo standard of review applies where the dispute is one of law rather than fact. 929 N.E.2d 184, 185-86 (Ind.2010) (citations omitted).

2011But a de novo standard of review applies where the dispute is one of law rather than fact. 929 N.E.2d 184, 185-86 (Ind.2010) (citations omitted).

2014“Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219, 223 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

2014“Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2017McCown v. State, 890 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). [7] As noted above, the plea agreement provides, The parties have no agreement regarding sentencing except that such sentence shall not exceed nine (9) years.

2014McCown v. State, 890 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).

2011Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480, 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).

2009Smith v. Huckins, 850 N.E.2d 480, 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).

2019"Although a trial court's determination of historical facts is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when reviewing the trial court's ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion and probable cause." Lindsey v. State , 916 N.E.2d 230 , 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied .

2017“Although a trial court’s determination of historical facts .is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when, reviewing the trial court’s ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.” Lindsey v. State, 916 N.E.2d 230, 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

2018Id.

2015Id. at 1037 n.7. [11] In reviewing a ruling on a Criminal Rule 4 challenge, we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law applied to undisputed facts, and a clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court’s factual findings on disputed facts.

2018Mueller v. Karns , 873 N.E.2d 652 , 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). [10] The interpretation of a restrictive covenant is an issue of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.

2014We apply a de novo standard of review to conclusions of law and owe no deference to the trial court’s determination of such questions.” Gates v. Houston, 897 N.E.2d 532, 534-35 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Mueller v. Karns, 873 N.E.2d 652, 657 (Ind.Ct.App.2007)).

2016Meyer v. Beta Tau House Corp., 31 N.E.3d 501, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.2015).

2016E.g., Meyer v. Beta Tau House Corp., 31 N.E.3d 501, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (statutes); Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1064 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (contracts), trans. denied.

2009See Penny v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 852 N.E.2d 954, 957 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied (2007).

2009Penny v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 852 N.E.2d 954, 957 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied.

2011See, e.g., Equicor Devel., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Township Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34, 37 (Ind.2001) (applying de novo review to appellate review of a trial court’s decision on certiorari from a zoning decision); GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind.2001) (applying de novo review to a paper record used to make findings of fact as to disputed evidence upon a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Trial Rule 12(B)(1)); Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 804 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (appellate review of an order denying a motion to compel an attorney to disgorge allege

2011GKN, 744 N.E.2d at 401 .

2019Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). [10] The interpretation of a statute is a question of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.

2019Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). [26] The interpretation of a statute is a question of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review.

2020Poiry v. City of New Haven, 113 N.E.3d 1236, 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

2020Poiry v. City of New Haven, 113 N.E.3d 1236, 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

2016Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ind. 2011). 4 The State also charged Desarmo in connection with the molestations, and tried Desarmo and Carle as co- defendants.

2016Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ind. 2011).

2020Lei Shi v. Cecilia Yi, 921 N.E.2d 31, 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2020Shi v. Yi, 921 N.E.2d 31, 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2019Kaser v. Barker, 811 N.E.2d 930, 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2019Kaser v. Barker, 811 N.E.2d 930, 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2019Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2014). [12] Here, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its entry of summary judgment.

2015Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 1257, 1259 (Ind.2014).

2013See Stulajter v. Harrah’s Ind. Corp., 808 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2011Id. (citing Stulajter v. Harrah's Ind. Corp., 808 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2004)).

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-3067 | August 20, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Under this standard, we look to whether evidence presented at trial supports the instruction and to whether its substance is covered by other instructions. [Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1230-31 (Ind. 2012).] When the appellant challenges the instruction as an incorrect statement of law, we apply a de novo standard of review.

2020Under this standard, we look to whether evidence presented at trial supports the instruction and to whether its substance is covered by other instructions. [Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1230-31 (Ind. 2012).] When the appellant challenges the instruction as an incorrect statement of law, we apply a de novo standard of review.

2010"We review questions of law under a de novo standard and owe no deference to a trial court's legal conclusions." Id. (quoting Int'l Union of Police Ass'ns, Local No. 133 v. Ralston, 872 N.E.2d 682, 687 (Ind.Ct.App.2007)).

2008“We review questions of law under a de novo standard and owe no deference to a trial court’s legal conclusions.” Int’l Union of Police Ass’ns, Local No. 133 v. Ralston, 872 N.E.2d 682, 687 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).

2004Id.

2000See Wayne Metal Products Co. v. Indiana Dep’t of Environmental Mgmt., 721 N.E.2d 316, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (“Appellate courts review questions of law under a de novo standard and owe no deference to a trial court’s legal conclusions.”), trans. denied.

2006Montgomery v. Estate of Montgomery, 677 N.E.2d 571, 574 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).

1999Id.

2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion | 49A04-1610-CR-2270 | July 31, 2017 Page 14 of 31 [17] In Johnson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 955, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, (internal citation omitted), in a case involving a traffic stop, not the issuance of a search warrant, a panel of this court acknowledged both the substantial deference given to courts that rule on motions to suppress and our de novo review as follows: Although a trial court’s determination of historical facts is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when reviewing the trial court’s ultimate determinat

2017In Johnson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 955, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, (internal citation omitted), in a case involving a traffic stop, not the issuance of a search warrant, .a panel of this court acknowledged both the substantial deference given to courts that rule on motions to suppress and our de novo review as follows: Although a trial courts, determination of historical facts is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when reviewing the trial court’s ultimate determinations of ■ reasonable suspicion and probable cause.