Case law

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.

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.

Robert C. Mills v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Shirley Starks, Kristen L. Sparks, Melanie Reising, and Elizabeth Herrmann

76 N.E.3d 879 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2017

sought relief; DCS was subject to the ADEA and was therefore statutorily excluded from the definition of employer under the IADA; and Mills’s claim for monetary damages under the ADEA was barred by the State’s sovereign immunity … | Opinion 82A01-1606-PL-1482 | April 28, 2017 Page 9 of 21  States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Shaw v. State

595 N.E.2d 743 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1992

Therefore, proof that the defendant's condition renders driving unsafe is sufficient to establish endangerment. Id. … Shaw argues that since the officer was not trained in the maintenance of the machine, he was not qualified to testify as to the workings of the Intoxilyzer.

Cua v. Ramos

418 N.E.2d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1981

His decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Smith v. Midwest Insurance Co., (1972) 154 Ind.App. 259 , 289 N.E.2d 788 . … The defense of qualified privilege and an allegation of malice which would overcome the privilege were in issue at trial. .

"F.B.C.", a Pseudonym v. MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDWISE, MDWISE NETWORK, INC., and MDWISE MARKETPLACE, INC.

122 N.E.3d 834 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2019

F.B.C. has failed to establish that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Disclosure claim. II. … Restatement (Third) of Torts § 46 cmt. e (2012) (“Although an actor exercising legal rights is not liable . . . merely for exercising those rights, the actor is not immunized from liability if the conduct

Turner v. Richmond Power and Light Co.

756 N.E.2d 547 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2001

In reviewing a trial court's findings of facts and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. Magness, 744 N.E.2d at 401 . … Thereafter, Citizens filed a summary judgment motion with the court arguing that it was entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Id.

Barnes v. Clayton

590 N.E.2d 1112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1992

Both of the above provisions clearly refer to the removal of an individual who is already serving as a commissioner. … Indiana Code 36-8-3.5-l(b) states in part: Each elected commission member must: (1) be a person of good moral character; and (2) except for a member of a fire department having a merit system established under IC 19-1-37.5

Griese-Traylor Corp. v. Lemmons

424 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1981

The corporation shows that it has no business establishment, neither hires nor retains employees, solicits no business, and is not qualified to do business in the state of Indiana. … It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized.” 204 F.Supp. at 131-132 .

Linda Martinez, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Martinez v. Oaklawn Psychiatric Center

128 N.E.3d 549 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2019

And in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. … Factual findings are clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support them, and a judgment is clearly Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2883 | July 12, 2019 Page 6 of 24  erroneous

Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen

874 N.E.2d 1065 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2007

At trial, Hansen established that he was owed BD compensation in the amount of $27,062.12. … This argument is insufficient to establish that KLP had a good faith and/or reasonable case to make against Skiles.

Brane v. Roth

590 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1992

We find that the trial court applied the correct standard of care upon the directors as established in I.C. § 23-1-2-11. … Wagers (1984), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 218, 222 , trans. denied (report pre *591 pared specifically for litigation does not qualify under the business record exception).

Fairbanks Hospital v. Harrold

895 N.E.2d 732 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2008

In that motion, Fairbanks noted, “Fairbanks is a qualified health care provider under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and was provided coverage for the plaintiffs’ claim through its professional liability carrier. … Our common law clearly finds the Act is not intended to cover claims of ordinary negligence unrelated to patient care, particularly involving sexual misconduct between non-physicians and patients.

Derrick Weedman v. State of Indiana

21 N.E.3d 873 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

A claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. … Weedman has not established a nexus between his mental health and the offense. Weedman has not shown that either proposed mitigator was significant or clearly supported by the record.

Sexton v. JACKSON CTY BD. OF ZONING APPEALS

884 N.E.2d 889 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2008

This statement, taken at face value, only establishes that the properties to which counsel refers sold for the asking price; it does not establish that the property values did not decrease prior to their listing. … The trial court's findings and conclusions to the contrary are clearly erroneous.

Y.A. Ex Rel. Fleener v. Bayh

657 N.E.2d 410 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1995

The statutory provisions at issue in this case provide for the establishment of the Division of Mental Health within the Office of the Secretary of Family and Social Services. … That statute provides a civil remedy against any "person" who, under color of state law, subjects a citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the federal constitution

Eric L. Carter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2015

An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record … We cannot say that Carter has demonstrated that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

Family Development, Ltd. v. Steuben County Waste Watchers, Inc.

749 N.E.2d 1243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2001

The Administrative Record clearly establishes that IDEM did not consider the impacts of wetlands destruction, the diversion of existing stream flows, and the diversion of leachate flows from the adjacent abandoned landfill … In summary, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the record “clearly establishes that IDEM did not consider the impacts of wetland destruction, the diversion of existing stream flows, and the diversion

William Wressell v. R.L. Turner Corporation

988 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

We find both of these conclusions to be clearly erroneous. The question that must be answered is whether various payments made by RLTC directly to Wressell or on his behalf constitute fringe benefits. … Wressell designated additional evidence tending to show that those payments were of a type that did not, in fact, qualify as being for fringe benefits.

In Re Paternity of Ljs

923 N.E.2d 458 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2010

s birth, these factors do not, as the court concludes, establish Father's disregard for the welfare of L.J.S. … Assuming without deciding that Grandparents qualify as de facto custodians, they must still overcome the strong presumption in favor of Father, the natural parent, in order to gain custody of L.J.S.