Case law

Wilkinson v. Swafford

811 N.E.2d 374 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

Two requirements must be met for a witness to be qualified as an expert. Schaefer, 750 N.E.2d at 793 . … Berkowitz is a physiatrist does not necessarily qualify him as an expert.

Austin v. Vanderburgh County Sheriff Merit Commission

761 N.E.2d 875 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 2002

According to those provisions, members of the department who meet the qualifying conditions must take and pass a written examination. … Clearly, such recommendations are dependent upon the independent personal evaluations of the various individuals involved.

Wilhoite v. Beck

141 Ind. App. 543 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1967

Parks to testify in regard to the rental value of the living quarters occupied by decedent in claimant’s home over the objection of counsel for the Executrix of the estate, that said witness had not been qualified as an expert … The evidence clearly establishes that appellee and decedent were distant cousins, second or third. To our knowledge our *550 courts have not ruled upon such a relationship in this type of action.

M Q v. M W

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2025

In reaching this conclusion, we hold that when a jurisdictional priority problem arises in a proceeding concerning custody of a child, that jurisdictional priority problem presumptively qualifies as a potential … in petitions to establish or modify parenting time)

Kaminsky v. Medical Licensing Bd. of Ind.

511 N.E.2d 492 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1987

Code 1 became effective and established rules that prohibit a chiropractic practitioner from using specific degree designations unless licensed for that degree. … Furthermore, the issue of whether a chiropractor is or is not a physician is not relevant to the disposition of this appeal because the statute clearly provides a specific exemption for which Lee was qualified.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.D. (Child) and L v. (Father) L v. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2019

On November 13, 2018, the court permanently terminated all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations pertaining to the parent-child relationship between Father and S.D. … The court also instructed Father about how to establish paternity. (CHINS Tr. Vol. VI at 10, 14.) Father failed to establish his paternity of S.D. sooner; he cannot now allege that as error on appeal.

Samuel Jude Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2019

Specifically, Robey asserted that one of the predicate felonies used to establish his habitual offender status, which he had admitted to, did not qualify under I.C. § 35-50-2-8. … We, however, do not find that the trial court’s order clearly specified the conviction that was being enhanced.

Miller v. Miller

763 N.E.2d 1009 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2002

Notwithstanding Wife's argument, our review of the record before us does not establish that the trial court failed to properly value the marital home. … Testimony at the final hearing revealed that he had a retirement plan from former employment and that a Qualified Domestic Relation Order (QUADRO) had been obtained against the retirement plan. 1 The expectation of the parties

Masonic Temple Ass'n of Crawfordsville v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance

779 N.E.2d 21 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2002

Masonic Temple contends that it will prevail at trial on its contention that the engineering report clearly revealed faulty construction as the source of the damage a predicate factual determihation and should also be allowed … Indiana Farmers claims that Uishig, an insurance expert without a law degree, is not qualified to offer an. admissible expert opinion on proximate cause or bad faith.

White v. White

755 N.E.2d 644 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2001

In November 2000, Mother and C.M.W. moved to Arkansas and established residence with Mother's boyfriend and two roommates. … Thus, neither Arkansas nor Indiana qualifies as C.M.W.'s home state.

Jeffrey B. Buskirk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2016

As it does not qualify as any of the types of pleadings specified by Trial Rule 7, a request for a sentence modification qualifies as a motion before the trial court, not a pleading. … The defendant must establish not only the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but must also establish that the prosecutorial misconduct constituted fundamental error.

Certain Westfield Southeast Area 1 Annexation Territory Landowners and Certain Westfield Southeast Area 2 Territory Landowners v. City of Westfield

977 N.E.2d 394 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2012

We do not set aside findings and judgments unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. We review questions of law de novo. Id. II. … publication that is published in the municipality as well as publication on the newspaper or qualified publication’s website.

Huffman v. McKinney

151 Ind. App. 238 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1972

Brown is now the duly elected, qualified and acting judge of that court. In the case of Wildwood Manor, Inc. v. Gary National Bank (1970), 146 Ind. App. 296 , 255 N. … E. 2d 719 , wherein this court, in discussing the necessity for the trial court to set out its reasons for granting a new trial said: “We have heretofore established the requirement that in sustaining a motion for a new trial

Negley v. Lebanon Community School Corp.

173 Ind. App. 17 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1977

The Superintendent contends that the following conclusion of law is clearly erroneous and an incorrect interpretation of the statutes: “2. … IC 1971, 21-5-11-2 (Burns Code Ed.) designates that school corporations may only lease school buildings under IC 1971, 21-5-11-1 from qualified lessor holding corporations.

In Re The Paternity of C.J.A.: G.C. (Mother) v. T.A. (Father)

3 N.E.3d 1020 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2014

s ("Father") paternity to C.A. was established in the Tippecanoe Circuit Court. Father and G.C. … She is qualified to seek licensure here. Mother testified licen-sure could be completed in 3 months.

Boggs v. State

928 N.E.2d 855 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2010

An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the trial court. McClendon, 910 N.E.2d at 832 ; Goldsberry, 821 N.E.2d at 454 . … analysis is one way, and perhaps the best way, to establish the identity of a compound."

Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Erickson

73 Ind. App. 657 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1920

was in the business of manufacturing freight cars, having in its employ more than five persons ; that in connection with its said business it used much electricity for power and light, and as a part of its manufacturing establishment … Besides, it clearly appears from the undisputed evidence, and from the answers of the jury to the 567 interrogatories submitted at the request of appellant, that substantial justice has been done. First Nat. Bank v.

Hennings v. State

638 N.E.2d 811 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1994

In Matter of O'Brien (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 972 , the court reviewed a case in which an attorney acted as an advocate then qualified and acted as judge pro tempore in the cause. … Clearly there is no incentive for the attorney formerly acting as decision-maker to question the propriety of his rulings on appeal once he has assumed the role of advocate.

Indian Trucking v. Harber

752 N.E.2d 168 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2001

The statutory duty imposed on drivers to perform inspections and make reports is clearly separate from that imposed on motor carriers. … Gerald Gundlach Pursuant to his contract with Indian Trucking and as the owner of the truck, Gundlach was responsible for hiring a qualified driver to drive for Indian Trucking.

Amanda and Joseph Emanuele and Alicia Emanuele v. Winford E. Moore, III (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

In light of this evidence, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in concluding that Grandparents “failed to present evidence that clearly and convincingly established that [the Child’s] best interests … Grandparents’ contention that “questions asked by [Father’s] [c]ounsel would certainly be in favor of his client and not ‘unbiased’ as to the true ability of [Father] to meet the court’s standard to qualify