evidence adduced hearing in Indiana

2015Nunn, 791 N.E.2d at 787 . [34] First, we must note that there is no evidence in the record that Mother even requested joint custody.

2015Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549 , 550- 51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).2 [35] Without worksheets, the trial court instead relied on the evidence adduced at the hearing to calculate the parties’ income.

2003Brinkmann, 772 N.E.2d 441 at 444 .

1980That case said, in 248 Ind. at 561 , 230 N.E.2d at 325 , that a waiver was proper: [I]f the offense has specific prosecutive merit in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney; or if it is heinous or of an aggravated character, greater weight being given to offenses against the person than to offenses against property, or, even though less serious, if the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses which would lead to a determination that said juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures; or where it is found to be in the best interest of

1980That case said, in 248 Ind. at 561 , 230 N.E.2d at 325 , that a waiver was proper: [I]f the offense has specific prosecutive merit in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney; or if it is heinous or of an aggravated character, greater weight being given to offenses against the person than to offenses against property, or, even though less serious, if the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses which would lead to a determination that said juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures; or where it is found to be in the best interest of

1975The ultimate probative value of such evidence to foster reasonable doubt of guilt appears slight at best (Reynolds v. State [1897], 147 Ind. 3, 7 ), and, conceivably, the large withdrawal so soon after receipt of the Christmas Club refund could imply a need for money.

1973Gariup v. Stern, supra; Johnson v. Tipton Comm. School Corp., supra. *659 With these standards in mind, we proceed to an examination of the evidence adduced at the hearing on Commission’s petition.

1970NOTE. — Reported in 263 N.E.2d 165 .

1970Note.—Reported in 263 N. E. 2d 165 .

1969Bron-nenberg v. Goins (1915), 183 Ind. 225 , 108 N. E. 862 ; The Indianapolis, Decatur and Western Railway Company v. Hood et al. (1892), 130 Ind. 594 , 30 N. E. 705 ; 23 I.L.E., §§ 231-34, pp. 434-40.” The appellant therefore, cannot now be permitted to complain about the sufficiency of the charges against him. *186 The evidence adduced at the hearing before the board on the Request for Dismissal, consists of the testimony of ten witnesses and encompasses 44 pages of the transcript.

1969Bron-nenberg v. Goins (1915), 183 Ind. 225 , 108 N. E. 862 ; The Indianapolis, Decatur and Western Railway Company v. Hood et al. (1892), 130 Ind. 594 , 30 N. E. 705 ; 23 I.L.E., §§ 231-34, pp. 434-40.” The appellant therefore, cannot now be permitted to complain about the sufficiency of the charges against him. *186 The evidence adduced at the hearing before the board on the Request for Dismissal, consists of the testimony of ten witnesses and encompasses 44 pages of the transcript.

1969Bron-nenberg v. Goins (1915), 183 Ind. 225 , 108 N. E. 862 ; The Indianapolis, Decatur and Western Railway Company v. Hood et al. (1892), 130 Ind. 594 , 30 N. E. 705 ; 23 I.L.E., §§ 231-34, pp. 434-40.” The appellant therefore, cannot now be permitted to complain about the sufficiency of the charges against him. *186 The evidence adduced at the hearing before the board on the Request for Dismissal, consists of the testimony of ten witnesses and encompasses 44 pages of the transcript.

1969Bron-nenberg v. Goins (1915), 183 Ind. 225 , 108 N. E. 862 ; The Indianapolis, Decatur and Western Railway Company v. Hood et al. (1892), 130 Ind. 594 , 30 N. E. 705 ; 23 I.L.E., §§ 231-34, pp. 434-40.” The appellant therefore, cannot now be permitted to complain about the sufficiency of the charges against him. *186 The evidence adduced at the hearing before the board on the Request for Dismissal, consists of the testimony of ten witnesses and encompasses 44 pages of the transcript.

1944Upon petition of the appellees the full Industrial Board, on January 24, 1944, entered the following order in the matter: “IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED AND ORDERED by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana by a majority of its Members that the approval of the stipulation of facts that was entered into by and between the parties at the time that the case was originally set for trial at Vincennes, Indiana, on November 2, 1943, is hereby revoked, and set aside, and the said stipulation is hereby set aside, and the case is hereby remanded for hearing before a Single Member of the Industrial

1944Upon petition of the appellees the full Industrial Board, on January 24, 1944, entered the following order in the matter: “IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED AND ORDERED by the Full Industrial Board of Indiana by a majority of its Members that the approval of the stipulation of facts that was entered into by and between the parties at the time that the case was originally set for trial at Vincennes, Indiana, on November 2, 1943, is hereby revoked, and set aside, and the said stipulation is hereby set aside, and the case is hereby remanded for hearing before a Single Member of the Industrial

1909Bounell v. Berryhill (1851), 2 Ind. 613 , was a habeas corpus proceeding by the guardian to obtain the custody of certain children who were his wards.

1909His counsel appear to have overlooked the fact that in Johns v. Emmert, supra, the court said: “Neither in appellee’s return to the writ, nor in the evidence adduced on the hearing, was there any cause shown why the appellant’s legal right to the custody of his ward should be denied him. ’ ’ In Palin v. Voliva, supra, this court also said: “The evidence given on the hearing does not show any reason why appellee's legal right to the custody of his ward should be denied.” These expressions of the court in the two cases in question clearly distinguish them, under the facts, from the case now befo