Case law

Lake Imaging LLC v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

claims against those who are not qualified providers under the MMA) … Instead, it merely establishes the limitations period for filing medical malpractice claims against non-qualified healthcare providers. Id.

Town of Darmstadt v. CWK Investments-Hillsdale, LLC

114 N.E.3d 11 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

Parkhurst: Clearly, the time for appeal wouldn't start until findings were made. Ms. Kasha: Right. Mr. Bohleber: Right, and that's my recollection. … Code § 36-7-4-1602 (c) ("A person is entitled to judicial review of a nonfinal zoning decision only if the person establishes both of the following: (1) Immediate and irreparable harm. (2) No adequate remedy exists at law

Sidell v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

428 N.E.2d 281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1981

She claimed to have worked exactly 26 weeks, just qualifying her for the T.R.A. benefits. … In determining this issue we use the established principle of construction that all language in a statute will be deemed to have been used intentionally.

Supervised Estate of Allender v. Allender

833 N.E.2d 529 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2005

Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroncous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. … In addition, the caretaker who testified that she only saw Donnie there two or three times qualified that statement by saying, "I work from eight to four, he could have came [sic] afterwards...." Tr. p. 260.

Marriage of Boone v. Boone

924 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2010

Indeed, we conclude that the failure to approve of retroactive child support predating the filing of a dissolution decree is more indicative of the Indiana Legislature's views on the subject, because the Legislature has clearly … Yet, in draconian terms, the dissent opines that our conclusion in this case will immunize deadbeat parents from legal accountability, give married deadbeat parents a "free pass" for shirking their duty, and deprive children

Averitt Express, Inc. v. State of Indiana ex rel. Indiana Department of Transportation

18 N.E.3d 608 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2014

The Court concluded that the United States was asking it to establish a “new liability,” and such a determination was a matter for Congress. Id. at 316. … Finally, the State is not asking us to establish a new form of liability, but rather to apply Indiana’s well-established principles of negligence to this case.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. J. C. Penney Co.

412 N.E.2d 1246 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1980

Accordingly, the court reasoned: “[W]e are of the opinion that these sales were clearly interstate in character and thus immune from state taxation .... … Clearly, the charge accounts in this case come within this definition.

Skrundz v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment SEC.

444 N.E.2d 1217 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1983

If the claimant is now attempting to establish an initial TRA claim when he could have done so earlier, the claim will be taken with a current effective date. … It is our opinion 29 C.F.R. § 91.6 clearly permits the Claimants to apply at any time to a State agency for TRA benefits.

Fort Wayne Education Ass'n v. Board of School Trustees of the Fort Wayne Community Schools

569 N.E.2d 672 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1991

Beginning with Article II, the Board has the right, responsibility and authority to establish and staff curriculum and programs. … The only qualifiers to his/her judgment is teacher preference and assignments outside the area of teacher certification (XI-AZ.ab). Length of service is absent from this section as a concept and a qualifier.

Rodgers v. Rodgers

503 N.E.2d 1255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1987

Morton qualified as special judge. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our Supreme Court held in State v. … Clearly, the trial court erred by appointing Mat-sey judge pro tempore while Judge McLaughlin was not absent from the court.

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2025

Code Title 32, Article 24” and that Defendants’ actions were “not due any immunity under Ind. Code Title 32, Article 24.” Id. … Thus, the compensation allowed under an eminent domain action clearly does not include all damages available from a tort claim for abuse of process.

Cain v. State

594 N.E.2d 835 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1992

To do so, the State first established that the defendant had met several times with the alleged co-conspirator witness. … Thus, the issue of Shepard's ered-ibility was clearly presented to and resolved by the jury. The evidence is insufficient, however, to sustain both counts of robbery upon these facts.

Perkins v. Owens

721 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1999

The judgment will be reversed if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … To qualify as a part performance of the oral contract certain circumstances must be present and these circumstances must be founded on, and referable to, the oral agreement. Dupont Feedmill Corp. v.

Sims v. State

771 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2002

To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendants to make a fair trial impossible. Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1246 . … Petitioner's burden before the post-conviction court was to establish the two elements of ineffective assistance of counsel separately as to both trial and appellate counsel. See id.

Reed v. State

857 N.E.2d 19 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2006

receives a greater sentence for possessing a firearm if he or she is a serious violent felon, we believe it is not entirely accurate to view the increased sentence resulting therefrom as an enhancement based upon status, as is clearly … The greater penalty for an SVF conviction reflects that the offense is elevated (ie., is a more serious offense) by virtue of the fact that the defendant has a qualifying prior conviction.

Keith A. Hoglund v. Michael Lautzenheiser, Sr., and Kenton Kiracofe (mem. dec.)

91 N.E.3d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2017

Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy dollars ($6,984,770 est.[2]) in a deferred debt unknown to the Claimant, Revenue in International Monetary Units (negative numbers, based on accrual accounting, qualifying … lacks standing to sue them because their alleged refusal to complete his fraudulent tax documents did not cause him any legally cognizable injury, the defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity

Martin v. Amoco Oil Co.

679 N.E.2d 139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1997

to qualify. … To succeed in their challenge, the Intervenors must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 834 .

John F. Harris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2016

He also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the apartment complex sufficiently to establish that it qualified as a family housing project. … In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id.

Thomas Roberts v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2013

The standard used to review claims that a statute is unconstitutional is well established: “every statute is presumed to comport with the Constitution until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Schweitzer v. … Equal Privileges and Immunities Roberts also claims that the sentence modification statute violates Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

Ashland Pipeline Co. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.

505 N.E.2d 483 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1987

In cases tried by the court, we will not set aside the findings or judgment of the trial court unless such findings and judgment are clearly erroneous. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A). … Ashland may not, as a matter of law, claim immunity from liability in reliance upon a fifty-year-old recorded instrument.