Case law

Radio Picture Show Partnership v. Exclusive International Pictures, Inc.

482 N.E.2d 1159 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1985

Radio in its Motion for Judgment on the pleadings and affidavits which were made a part thereof clearly establish that on the date of service Roxxon Entertainment was no longer the general partner of Radio and the uncontroverted … The court is left to guess. 3622 Limited has not carried its burden of pleading and proving its immunity.

Corporation for General Trade v. Sears

780 N.E.2d 405 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2002

Clearly this was not done in the instant case. … Johnson qualified as Special Judge in the case. 6 . Sears does not appeal the trial court's finding of a prescriptive easement in favor of CGT.

Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds

891 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2008

To invoke this doctrine, the mat *1083 ters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of an opinion. … In fact, if he can’t work then the jury’s award is going to have to take care of him; and therefore I was not making reference to the immunity.... Id. at 382.

WTHR-TV v. State

685 N.E.2d 1091 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1997

Pursuant to the three-pronged test, 4 the journalist would be compelled to disclose the materials only after a showing that “(1) the materials sought are clearly material and relevant to the underlying action; (2) there is … In light of the Supreme Court’s clear statements that a reporter does not have a privilege to withhold evidence relating to a crime, we reject WTHR’s assertion that Zulka establishes such a First Amendment privilege.

LeRon E. Easley-El v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2018

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Nov … [4] Easley-El’s crimes qualify him as a violent criminal. In seeking relief, he must therefore comply with the rules relating to sentence modification for violent criminals.

Asia Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2017

To qualify as an excited utterance, a statement must have been made after a startling event has occurred, while under the stress or excitement caused by the event, and it must relate to the event. Young v. … See Fowler, 829 N.E.2d at 464 (noting an excited utterance is not necessarily immune from attack under the Confrontation Clause, but also noting that “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial,

Jones v. State

457 N.E.2d 231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1983

The cited cases held that summer fishing camps and other temporary retreats similar to the one described in this case did not qualify as "dwellings" under the statute. … appears that the amendment was made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.

Steel v. Rust

830 N.E.2d 62 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2005

Beta argues on appeal that this effectively constituted a medical opinion and Doolittle was not qualified to provide such an opinion. … It is unnecessary to turn to the Indiana Administrative Code or the National Electric Code to establish a duty on Beta's part for Brian's benefit or to establish the existence of a cause of action for Margaret.

Senco Products, Inc. v. Riley

434 N.E.2d 561 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1982

To demonstrate abuse of discretion, defendant must demonstrate that the ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. McFarlan v. … Riley carried his burden of establishing proximate cause. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Riley was injured by a staple coming from the Senco gun he was using.

Carmen v. Eli Lilly Company

109 Ind. App. 76 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1941

An effective resistance is established by a short course of treatment which is applicable to all types of cases. … insufficient to establish one or more facts essential to the plaintiff’s right of action.”

James Short v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2018

“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court has misinterpreted the law.” Id. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1372 | November 14, 2018 Page 5 of 6  probation officers and sheriff’s deputies qualify as “any” probation or law enforcement officers

Board of Directors of the Bass Lake Conservancy District v. Brewer

818 N.E.2d 952 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

Because the typical definition of a duplex is a "two-family dwelling," say the Brewers, their residence does not qualify as such. Appellant's App. p. 118. … The Bass Lake Board's Contentions The Bass Lake Board argues that the trial court's judgment may not stand because the evidence clearly established that the Brewers owned a "multiplex" within the meaning of the ordinance.

Melody Barrows v. Crossroads Bank (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly … Further, a party appealing from a negative judgment will prevail only if the party establishes the judgment is contrary to law. See id.

Galloway v. Hadley

881 N.E.2d 667 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

[Wjhile the plaintiff does claim some economic loss from not being on the approved list that loss is not qualifiable [sic] and cannot be judged. … The second criterion is whether plaintiff has established a likelihood of success at trial.

Elkins v. Marion County Office of Family & Children

736 N.E.2d 791 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2000

Standard of Review This court will not set aside the trial court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship unless it is clearly erroneous. In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542 , 544 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). … City of Manhattan, 849 F.Supp. 1429, 1439 (D.Kan.1994), Elkins observes that a violation is established upon a showing that she: is a qualified individual with a disability; was excluded from participation in or denied the

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Anderson

171 Ind. App. 375 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1976

court finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … We have held, swpra, that the evidence already before the Department establishes as a matter of law that Anderson is entitled to benefits.

Larry Lyons, Jr. v. State of Indiana

993 N.E.2d 1192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2013

“An alternate is not, of course a member of the jury, and he or she qualifies as an outside influence under [Evidence] Rule 606(b).” Griffin v. … Lyons has not established harm or substantial risk of harm. II.

Snipes v. State

298 N.E.2d 503 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1973

He was not qualified as an expert. Thus, the trial judge properly found the testimony was not relevant and did not err. No. 2. Did the court err in allowing evidence of another crime? … The officer further testified that the defendant-appellant spoke clearly and read the statement aloud before he signed it. In the case of Smith v.

Vollmar Ex Rel. Vollmar v. Rupright

517 N.E.2d 1240 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1988

To allow Bradley to enjoy the benefits of a reduction in attorneys' fees without incurring any of the cost of the pursuit of such a reduction clearly would be inequitable. … While in this case Bradley holds the dual role of beneficiary and personal representative, this does not mean that funds destined for Bradley as a beneficiary are immune from payment of fees incurred by Bradley as personal

Schilling v. HUNTINGTON CTY. COMMUNITY SCH. CORP.

898 N.E.2d 385 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2008

. *388 DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our standard of review for summary judgment appeals is well established. Asbestos Corp. v. Akaiwa, 872 N.E.2d 1095, 1096 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. … Being a volunteer firefighter clearly qualifies as `any other business or occupation.' Id.