Case law

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

Sizemore v. State

159 Ind. App. 549 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1974

It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the … The question of whether a witness is qualified to give an expert opinion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision in this area will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse

Monschein v. LaLonde

701 N.E.2d 1275 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1998

. *1279 Although Father cites Thornburg as support ive of his position that he is not a stepfather, on the contrary, Father would clearly qualify as a stepfather under this second definition recognized by Thornburg . … Most importantly, the trial court found that Grandmother had “established a strong bond with [C.M.]” given that C.M. lived with Grandmother for a significant amount of time. Record, p. 231.

Benjamin J. Selig v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2019

[5] An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … [6] Under the circumstances of this case, Selig has failed to establish an abuse of discretion.

Aide v. Chrysler Financial Corp.

699 N.E.2d 1177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1998

As a matter of law, Aide has failed to establish that class counsel provided inadequate representation. 2 II. … The release clearly prohibits Aide from litigating the claim in a state court absent dismissal of Sanders. III.

Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.

641 N.E.2d 1275 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1994

If Wior's version of the events is believed, then the parties' intention with regard to the permanent nature of the employment is clearly manifested and there is no requirement of independent consideration. … The "distinguishing factors" include that: 1) an employee uniquely qualified for the position; 2) who had "lifetime employment" with the previous employer; 3) was recruited by the new employer for a unique position; 4) advised

Indiana State Department of Public Welfare v. Lifelines of Indianapolis Ltd. Partnership

637 N.E.2d 1349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1994

To qualify for assistance, a state must devise a scheme for reimbursing health care providers and have that plan approved by the Secretary of Health & Human Services. … Congress clearly intended to allow the states to engage in price-conscious “shopping” for services for Medicaid recipients. Mary Washington, 635 F.Supp. at 899 .

Henry Swanigan v. Founders Insurance Company and Ronnie Watson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2015

[8] Although an insurer has the right to limit their coverage of risks, the limitation is enforceable only if clearly expressed and consistent with public policy. Stonington Ins. Co. v. … “[I]f a person qualifies as an insured under the liability section of the policy, he must also qualify under the uninsured motorist section or the insurance contract violates public policy.”

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corp. v. Stichnoth

877 N.E.2d 475 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2007

Although invitation does not in itself establish the status of an invitee, it is essential to it. … Ber-la’s testimony to establish Justin’s lost earnings and impaired earning capacity as a result of his injuries. Dr.

Campbell v. Shelton

727 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 3, 2000

With regard to the court’s final comment, Campbell contends that it constituted error because: “Clearly, an endorsement by a trial court that a witness is an expert in his or her field places in a juror’s mind the idea that … State, 45 Ind. 175 (1873), a suit was filed to establish paternity.

Justin Hoskins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2019

), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 21 2019, 7:45 am court except for the purpose of establishing … The judge has “considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed,” and we will reverse only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

L. S. Ayres & Co. Et Al. v. IPALCO Et Al.

169 Ind. App. 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1976

Consequently such customers cannot qualify for Rate J. … However, the establishment of availability does not automatically establish the Plant as used and useful or reasonably necessary for rate-making purposes.

Ferguson v. O'Bryan

996 N.E.2d 428 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2013

Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d at 995 (noting that the privity rule “has vanished evolutionarily during the twentieth century” and now “it is well-established that privity is not always required”). In Walker v. … the Relatives were identified was not created until after the will was drafted, they clearly do not fall within this category.

Longest ex rel. Longest v. Sledge

992 N.E.2d 221 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2013

More is required to establish dependency for the purposes of the GWDS. … The trial court clearly considered the reasonableness of the $350/hour billable rate.

Jm v. Da

935 N.E.2d 1235 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2010

In Thomas , the father argued that being a full-time student does not qualify as a "work-related activity" for which childcare expenses may be reimbursed. 834 N.E.2d at 1059 . … Thus, we cannot say that the trial court's finding was clearly erroneous.

In re the Paternity of M.R.A. and L.R.C.: M.A. v. B.C.

41 N.E.3d 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2015

We “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous . . . .” T.R. 52(A). … We therefore conclude the trial court’s judgment in this regard is clearly erroneous. IV.

Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Combs

446 N.E.2d 1001 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1983

On September 26, 1980, Michigan Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment in which it once again asserted Michael's failure to qualify as an "insured" under the pertinent policy provision. … In answering that question affirmatively, the Pierce court relied on the "physical contact" rule, under which any evidence of physical contact with an insured vehicle before injury is sufficient to establish that the insured

Dover v. Reynolds

135 Ind. App. 573 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1963

that in event an application for change of judge or change of venue from the county is granted within said ten (10) day period, such request for trial by jury shall be made within ten (10) days after the special judge is qualified … E. 2d page 21, reiterated those principles by stating: “To require the trial court to grant a jury trial under the facts in this case would establish a precedent under which a defending party in any case could delay filing

Robinson v. State

309 N.E.2d 833 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1974

The testimony of a sheriff's department detective sergeant established that the child died in his presence at Methodist Hospital at 9:29 P.M. … When it is clearly established that the crime charged was consummated and that the accused, who denies any connection with such crime, is either guilty of the crime charged or none at all, there is no basis for a verdict