Case law

Meier v. Pearlman

74 Ind. Dec. 252 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1980

Absent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney’s conduct as an attorney for another. … of a fraudulent or unlawful act.” * * * (Emphasis added) The court held in McDonald that the rule of immunity was properly applied.

Zemco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Pecoraro

703 N.E.2d 1064 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1998

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only for an abuse of discretion, that is, only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Excluding the evidence regarding the Ze-men case was clearly erroneous. Viewing Zemco’s claims only in terms of the Agreement does not accurately portray the context in which the claims arose.

Campbell v. Porter County Board of Commissioners

565 N.E.2d 1164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1991

The record in this case shows the Shift Captains have failed to establish the first part of the Connick test. There is no indication they were speaking on matters of “public concern.” … Taken as a whole, the letter clearly indicates that the Shift Captains felt slighted by the Board. Such a grievance is a matter of personal interest and not subject to judicial oversight.

Reinking v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County

671 N.E.2d 137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 1996

Bowen, 317 N.E.2d 193 . *141 We determined that the lessee did not have standing to request a variance because its interest did not qualify as a real party in interest. Id., 317 N.E.2d at 197-199 . … However, the zoning ordinance may establish a stricter standard than the "practical difficulties" standard prescribed by this sub-division.

Childs v. Rayburn

169 Ind. App. 147 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 1976

In its relation to resulting damages a flood is classed as an act of God in a legal sense with the consequent immunity of man from liability, only in the absence of human agency wrongfully or negligently contributing to produce … Childs next argues that the evidence “unquestionably” established that lightning was the sole cause of Steven’s death.

Mitchell v. Mitchell

875 N.E.2d 320 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2007

Alicia filed a Rule to Show Cause on June 27, 2006, contending that David violated the dissolution decree by delaying to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) regarding the division of his 401(k) and failing … Analysis When, as here, the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Gilmore v. State

953 N.E.2d 583 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2011

Gilmore has demonstrated throughout this case he is an intelligent, articulate individual clearly capable of *586 understanding the judicial process. … Indigency, for the purpose of qualifying for a taxpayer funded defense, involves an inquiry into income, expenses, resources and assets.

Callie R Burke v. Indiana State Personnel Department

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2026

[9] Burke filed a response and argued that she met her burden of establishing jurisdiction. … Burke counters in her reply brief that her “request for declaratory relief surrounding classified service is immune from AOPA review and/or forfeiture.” Reply Br. p. 12.

Belterra Casino v. Yufen (He) Dusan

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2020

[9] To prevail on a failure-to-accommodate disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability, that the employer was aware of her disability … Clearly, Dusan could not perform this essential function without an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-2650| October 21, 2020 Page 19 of 23  accommodation. 7 Also, contrary to the Commission

David E. Lyons v. State of Indiana

976 N.E.2d 137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2012

sufficient to invoke the fundamental error exception; rather, the error must be such that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial and that the appellate court is left with the conviction that the verdict is clearly … In construing the above, only one of these characteristics—knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education—is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert. Otte v. State, 967 N.E.2d 540, 547 (Ind. Ct.

In Re Paternity of TP

920 N.E.2d 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2010

On November 8, 2004, the trial court established Father's paternity, granted him visitation, and ordered him to pay child support. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id.

Gibson v. State

99 Ind. App. 106 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1934

The judge of said court shall be known as the judge of the juvenile court and shall be elected by the qualified voters of said county at the time of the general election of state officers, shall hold his office for a term … created the Vanderburgh Probate Court, is a law local and special in its application, and would therefore not be held to have been repealed by implication by a later general act unless the legislative intent to so repeal is clearly

Wolfe v. Tuthill Corp., Fill-Rite Division

516 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1987

On the other hand, the definition of "trade secret" contained in IC 24-2-8-2 posits that the information, etc., in order to qualify as a trade secret, is not "readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can … To this extent then the plaintiff must establish the definitional requirement to be entitled to relief and he bears the burden of doing so.

Forrest Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2015

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Jones v. State, 812 N.E.2d 820, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). … [8] With respect to the nature of Brown’s offense, we note that Brown’s arrearage is more than double the amount required to qualify the offense as a class C felony, and that Brown failed to pay any child

Wininger v. State

526 N.E.2d 1216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1988

Clearly, Gray's memory was not refreshed. Rather, he was merely testifying from the transcript of his previous testimony. … Having failed to meet the requirements to qualify as a past recollection recorded, the 1984 transcript of Gray's testimony was not admissible.

Hibbard v. Hibbard

118 Ind. App. 292 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1947

Proof of the existence of such a relation between the parties establishes prima facie that the dominant party to such relation occupies a position of trust and confidence which he must not abuse.” … Army Air Force where he qualified as a pilot, and the court takes judicial knowledge of the rigorous physical and mental requirements of such service.

Bulen v. Pendleton Banking Co.

118 Ind. App. 217 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1948

Johnson, and decedent’s six children, as well as Pendleton Banking Company, Administrator, have all appeared, participated in and given testimony in said hearing. “(4) That Pendleton Banking Company is the duly appointed, qualified … It is clearly apparent that the facts as found specially by the court wholly fail to establish all of the elements necessary to constitute a valid gift inter vivos under the above rules.

Christa Allen v. Richard Hinchman, M.D. Richard Tanner, M.D. and Jeffery Smith, M.D.

20 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2014

Wilson was qualified to testify, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate. … Generally, in order to establish a claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish the following by expert medical testimony: 1) the applicable standard of care required by Indiana law; 2) how the defendant

Leonard v. Leonard

877 N.E.2d 896 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2007

Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. … Valuing a pension requires a court to determine (1) what evidence must be presented to establish the value of the benefit, (2) what date must be used to assign a dollar amount to the benefit, and (3) how much of the benefit

Locklayer v. State

162 Ind. App. 64 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1974

However, closely related to the defense of entrapment, yet clearly distinguishable is an additional rule of probable cause applied by our courts for the protection of the defendant. … Further, by reason of his past experience with drugs, a narcotics addict may be properly qualified to render an opinion that the substance he injected into his body contained a narcotic drug with which he has demonstrated