Case law

State Board Tax Commissioners v. International Business College, Inc.

145 Ind. App. 353 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1969

of incorporation so literally as to defeat the established purpose of fostering education.” … Clearly, plaintiffs in the Coppock case did not qualify as owner, occupant and user. Said case is therefore directly analogous to Travelers Insurance Co. v. Kent (1898), 151 Ind. 349 , 50 N.

Adams v. Chavez

874 N.E.2d 1038 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2007

Isch and requested that the chairman “establish a striking panel for [Adams’s] nominee.” Appellant’s Appendix at 146. … An abuse of discretion exists where ' the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.

Campbell v. Eckman/Freeman & Associates

670 N.E.2d 925 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1996

The court reasoned that the mere fact that the insurance carrier has a relationship with the employer should not afford it special immunity under the Act. Id. at 331 . … These documents also clearly stated that Intracorp was retained by the insurance company and that Intracorp’s involvement and services were based on the insurance company’s request.

Roob v. Fisher

856 N.E.2d 723 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2006

Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous, which occurs when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. … Section *730 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States.

L.B. v. M.B. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2019

which provides, (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in declining to award joint legal custody for medical decisions.

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.

In Re Paternity of MGS

756 N.E.2d 990 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2001

. § 31-19-9-15 [3] is not jurisdictional, and *997 the trial court should have concluded that his irrevocable implied consent was inequitable because his behavior clearly evinced an intent to establish parental rights. … Specifically, I.C. § 31-19-9-15 clearly states that a putative father forgoes his right to establish paternity of the child if he fails to file his paternity action within thirty days of receiving notice of the potential

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

Cook v. Bricklayers Local Union 19 of Indiana Retirement Plan

884 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2008

Such an order must clearly identify the alternate party and the part of the Participant’s benefit to which he or she has a claim. Any claims must be evidenced by a certified copy of the court order. … [ERISA], Congress established a detailed federal framework for the regulation of pension and welfare benefit plans. Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden, 699 N.E.2d 301, 303 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.S.M. (Minor Child) and A.M.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2018

All rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations concerning the Child, including the right to consent to adoption, pertaining to that relationship are permanently … Accordingly, we cannot say that it is clearly erroneous in this regard.

Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp.

419 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 1981

The general rule is that expert medical testimony is required to establish the content of such “reasonable disclosure” unless the situation is clearly within the realm of laymen’s comprehension as where the disclosure is … A panelist shall have absolute immunity from civil liability for all communications,' findings, opinions, and conclusions made in the course and scope of duties prescribed by this article. 8 .

Rodebaugh v. Rodebaugh

79 Ind. App. 324 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1923

Appellee was duly appointed administrator of her estate by the Allen Circuit Court, qualified as such, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his trust. … Clearly, the element of a meritorious defense to appellee’s said claim is sufficiently alleged, and therefore the contention in question is unwarranted.

Dove v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc.

434 N.E.2d 931 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1982

Rust told him he could sleep and still qualify for the bonus. Dove left to seek medical treat *933 ment and missed two days in the tenth week of the bonus program. … Furthermore, neither the bonus contract nor any surrounding circumstances clearly indicated that a single day’s absence was intended to work a forfeiture.

Gates v. Rosenogle

452 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1983

It is elementary that a party offering a deposition into evidence bears the burden of establishing its admissibility. … Thus, the deposition could have been found inadmissible for Gates' failure to establish compliance with TR 32(A). ' Citing an annotation in 48 AL.

Cox v. State

422 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1981

They also admitted the theft of various tools from Carter’s Block, Inc., a Logans-port business establishment. … They testified, however, they had not been promised immunity in exchange for their testimony against Cox. I.

Thompson v. State

875 N.E.2d 403 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

State, 829 N.E.2d 923, 925 (Ind.2005), in applying the Blakely holding: A trial court ... may enhance a sentence based only on those facts that are established in one of several ways: 1) as a fact of a prior conviction; 2 … With the 2006 amendment, the qualifying crimes for which a defendant could be determined a sexually violent predator were referenced by citation to Ind.Code § 11-8-8-5.

Williams v. Hittle

629 N.E.2d 944 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1994

Even though, at the time this evidence was admitted, Indiana had not yet adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, the financial statements in question would clearly be admissible under federal law. … This is especially so when the aggrieved party is an established business: “[W]here the loss of the use of property involves a known and established business, the value of such loss of the use of the property may be determined

In the Matter of the Name Change of K.H., K.H.

127 N.E.3d 257 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2019

[9] In A.L., we noted that as a general rule, a petitioner seeking a name change must give notice of the petition in a qualifying newspaper. … First, these attestations sufficiently establish that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to K.H. if she is forced to provide the notice demanded by the trial court.

Conner v. First National Bank

118 Ind. App. 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1947

During the progress of the trial the appellants qualified Dr. R. R. Naugle as an expert on internal medicine and mental diseases. … Although broader than the question, there is nothing in the appellants’ offer that it would not have been competent to establish by Dr.

Shenmei Yuan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2020

Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855, 858 (Ind. 2000) (“Unsworn statements . . . do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence.”). … Used in the Hogueison Affidavit [16] Yuan’s next challenge to the Hogueison Affidavit is that it did not provide a proper foundation for the admission of Exhibits 1-4 as business records because it is “clearly