Case law

Montagana v. City of Elkhart

149 Ind. App. 283 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1971

As a public right the plaintiff together with the rest of the taxpayers *290 which he represents would clearly have a right, but not an unqualified right. … Attackable “wastage” in the sense hereinabove used would also occur where the annexation was clearly or patently illegal.

Jerry Dillon v. State of Indiana, Burton A. Padove, Laurie Leber, and Patricia Pitcher

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2014

Dillon has not established that the trial court erred by not issuing findings and conclusions. … Conclusion Dillon has not established that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.

Devon L. Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

72 N.E.3d 928 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2017

An allegation that the trial court failed to find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. … Finally, the trial court did not err by determining the hardship to Hunter’s dependents did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.

Environmental Properties v. City of Fort Wayne

178 Ind. App. 645 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1978

The mode in which a municipality can seek modification of its territorial boundaries is exclusively established by the State Legislature. 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corp., § 50. … If appellants had not qualified as remonstrators, an action for declaratory judgment may have been an available avenue for relief.

Lake County Beverage Co. v. 21st Amendment, Inc.

441 N.E.2d 1008 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1982

It raises a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intention more clearly. Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm. v. … There is no evidence to infer that Kuhn’s discount system was formulated in such a manner that only selected purchasers could qualify for the discounts.

Danny Sims v. Andrew Pappas and Melissa Pappas

61 N.E.3d 1285 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2016

A review of the record, especially closing arguments, 8 makes clear that the evidence of Sims’s prior offenses was admitted for the sole purpose of establishing punitive damages. … In rebuttal, plaintiffs’ counsel discussed the prior offenses in a bit more depth, as quoted by the majority, but counsel qualified his statements: "Again, that goes to the punitive and that’s up to you guys.”

Impink v. City of Indianapolis, Board of Public Works

612 N.E.2d 1125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 6, 1993

Notwithstanding their waiver of this issue, 1.C. 34-4-17.5-1 clearly requires: Sec. 1. … Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), 473 U.S. 172 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (establishing a two-prong test to determine whether a taking claim is ripe for adjudication).

Henry v. Moberly

6 Ind. App. 490 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1893

Where the occasion is one of qualified privilege. … In this case the words set out in the complaint, if false, as therein alleged, are clearly libelous, unless justified, under the circumstances stated, by the privileges of the occasion. Pat chell v. Jaqua, 6 Ind.

Robert Lynn Co. v. Town of Clarksville Board of Zoning Appeals

867 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2007

However, the zoning ordinance may establish a stricter standard than the “practical difficulties” standard prescribed by this subdivision. … (b) The subdivision control ordinance must specify the standards by which the commission determines whether a plat qualifies for primary approval.

Miller Brewing Co. v. Bartholemew County Beverage Co.

674 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1996

However, qualifying sales made outside a distributor’s APR would entitle the distributor to only one-third of the intra-APR reimbursement amount. … Miller’s understanding of Rule 28 is clearly at odds with the understanding the court finds to be mandated by its language, underlying policy and strong legislative intent.

Beaty Construction, Inc. v. Board of Safety Review

912 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2009

The Board also established the availability of feasible means to abate the hazard. … This is clearly contrary to the requirements of the applicable regulation.

Sandra M. Bowers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2016

She testified that she would have to sell drugs regularly to qualify as a drug dealer, that she did not sell drugs “very often,” and that she sold drugs “[e]very couple of days.” Id. at 27. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record

Aafco Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Publications, Inc.

162 Ind. App. 671 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1974

Does the qualified constitutional privilege announced in New York Times v. Sullivan and Rosenbloom v. … For example, a state legislator in Indiana is immune from liability even if he publishes defamatory material with an improper motive and with knowledge of its falsity (absolute privilege). IND. CONST., Art. 4, § 8.

Com. for Prev. Wage Scale, Etc. v. Zeller, Etc.

140 Ind. App. 478 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1965

Zeller, was a duly appointed, qualified, and acting officer of said committee, pursuant to Acts of 1935, Chapter 319, Burns’ Indiana Statutes, 1951 Repl., Sec. 53-301. 6. … Replacement, affords a statutory action predicated upon the provisions thereof and makes essential, as a basis of jurisdiction, that an actual controversy be presented, that is, a justiciable controversy or question, which is clearly

Hinesley-Petry v. Petry

894 N.E.2d 277 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2008

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. Carmichael v. … authorization for the divorce court to order either *281 or both parents to pay sums toward their child’s college education constitutes a reasonable manner in which to enforce the expectation that most families would encourage them qualified

Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. West

812 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2004

Whether Employees' claims against IDEM are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity; II. … Clearly there has been no prejudice to [the professor] in the presentation of the merits of his case, and in fact, he claims none.

State v. Caplinger

616 N.E.2d 793 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1993

marked as a police vehicle, which will clearly show him or his vehicle to casual observations to be an officer. … APPELLATE RULE 15(A)(3) PROVIDES: "Unless specifically designated 'For Publication', memorandum decisions shall not be published nor shall they be regarded as precedent nor cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing

Hill v. Ward

45 Ind. App. 458 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1910

Ruhl, supra, the court said: “There is, however, at least one paragraph of the answer which is clearly bad, and that is the paragraph which pleads want of consideration. … , and its holder can transfer it to others with the like immunity.

In Re KJA

790 N.E.2d 155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2003

In summary, not only did the juvenile statutes prohibit the court from requiring anyone aside from the county to pay for services provided for K.J.A., the statutes that establish the Bureau clearly prohibit the Division from … s finding that K.J.A. qualified for services was not tantamount to the Division finding that the Bureau would pay for any services for which K.J.A. qualified. As we said above, the Division approved the A.L.J.'

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: O.G., II (Minor Child) and K.T. (Mother) & O.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

65 N.E.3d 1080 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2016

[19] Exhibits 39 and 40 are clearly hearsay, but were admitted under the exception for business records. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the court statement is no less