Case law

Jason Young v. Hood's Gardens, Inc.

2 N.E.3d 724 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2013

We reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions … Young’s statement as to the value of wood at best qualifies as a conclusory and speculative lay opinion. Further, Young’s affidavit contains no indication that he is an expert. See Ind. Evidence Rule 702.

JC Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek

461 N.E.2d 1149 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1984

The evidence clearly indicates that the plaintiff entered the defendant J.C. Penney store to make a purchase and also to look at the drapery department. … To qualify as an invitee, a visitor’s purpose for using the owner’s premises must correspond to the owner’s purposes for allowing others on his land. Mullins, supra at 593, 95 , 376 N.E.2d at 1181 .

Jose Guzman v. State of Indiana

985 N.E.2d 1125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2013

As such, Austin indisputably qualifies as a victim of Guzman’s criminal acts under Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3(a). B. … The letter establishes the exact amount of loss incurred by Austin.

Blakely v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

120 Ind. App. 257 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 1950

The contention of the employees may be summarized as follows: First, That because this act is liberally construed to achieve its beneficent purpose an otherwise qualified unemployed claimant is entitled to its benefits unless … he is clearly covered by a disqualifying provision of the Act.

State Ex Rel. Department of Financial Institutions v. Richard's Estate

108 Ind. App. 178 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1940

Richards, appellee’s now decedent, qualified and was duly appointed executrix. … In the above authorities and the many casés cited therein the rule seems clearly established that where an effective rejection or renunciation is timely made by one who has the right it will usually relate back or attach

Rentokil North America, Inc., and Hunter Horne v. Brenda Hendricks (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2019

This is sufficient evidence to establish the officer as having specialized training and knowledge about accident investigation. … the officer qualified as an expert.

Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman

705 N.E.2d 539 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1999

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the judgment for relief. Id. … Clearly, the jury gave more weight to the Ammermans’ evidence.

B & M Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America

480 N.E.2d 227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1985

The fact that interest follows principal together with B & M's right of recovery establishes its property interest in the $34,440.48 of accrued interest. … Appeal bond record keeping is clearly mandated to be done at public expense.

Francisco Perez, Jr., Individually, and by Laura Aguirre his natural guardian and next friend, and Laura Aguirre, Individually v. Michael Hu, M.D. St. Catherine Hospital of East Chicago Indiana, Inc.

87 N.E.3d 1130 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2017

This notation alone does not establish that Dr. … Aguirre’s lack of informed consent claim clearly is of the second type.

Shaw v. Shelby County Department of Public Welfare

584 N.E.2d 595 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1992

During September, October and November of 1990, at the request of the parents, Carol, Ralph and [R.R.] were examined by a qualified psychiatrist, Robert M. … Moreover, each element of I.C. 31-6-5-4(c) was established by clear and convincing evidence.

Bowyer v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

944 N.E.2d 972 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2011

that “a waterline always exists, whether legally established or not.” … The fact that the man could be an excellent surveyor does not qualify him to talk about the natural state of the lake bed. Transcript at 94.

City of Bloomington v. Holt

172 Ind. App. 650 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1977

In fact, the trial court, may cure errors it may have committed in ruling out evidence in its instructions to the jury, where in those instructions the court assumes the existence of the fact sought to be established by the … The instruction clearly advises the jury that it is to only consider how the agreement affects the interests of the parties in the litigation.

Jeffery Gourley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

121 N.E.3d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2019

State, 905 N.E.2d 384, 390-91 (Ind. 2009) (noting that “every statute [is] clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until that presumption is clearly overcome by a contrary showing”). … This factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Act as nonpunitive. Id. at 812 (citation omitted).

Herron v. Anigbo

866 N.E.2d 842 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 2007

Our Supreme Court has upheld the facial validity of this statute under the Privileges and Immunities and Open Courts Clauses in Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Langman v. … Clearly, he has a nonunion and complete displacement of his structural allograft and plate.

M. v. B.C.

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.

Telfare v. State

163 Ind. App. 413 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1975

Clearly there can be no entrapment involved in this transaction. … State (1970), 253 Ind. 525 , 255 N.E.2d 652 , concerning the need for establishing a chain of custody for narcotics.

McGary v. State

421 N.E.2d 747 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1981

The special judge qualified and assumed jurisdiction on December 2, 1976. … We believe the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Floyd v.

Howard v. State

672 N.E.2d 944 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1996

State, our supreme court stated: "To qualify as fundamental error,' the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.... … However, we concluded that under the particular circumstances of that case, the instructional error regarding the specific intent to kill was clearly harmless. Id. at 592 .

Burke v. State

943 N.E.2d 870 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2011

Clearly, the religious liberty provisions of the Indiana Constitution were not intended merely to mirror the federal First Amendment. … that we have used a different standard when analyzing claims under Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution: “ ‘[Tjhere is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify

In Re the Guardianship of Knepper

856 N.E.2d 150 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2006

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 840 . … (e) This section does not apply to a custodian or other qualified witness to the extent the witness seeks to introduce evidence that is otherwise admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(6).