Case law

Tate v. State

835 N.E.2d 499 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2005

To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Merritt v. State, 822 N.E.2d 642, 643 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). … An abuse of discretion is established when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Prewitt v. State, 761 N.E.2d 862, 869 (Ind. Ct.App.2002).

Page v. Board of Commissioners of County of Clay

155 Ind. App. 215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1973

Other medical evidence presented by Page clearly established his traumatic neurosis to be the result of the accident. … Bearing the burden of proof, he presented testimony of two qualified physicians each of whom directly or indirectly concluded that his traumatic neurosis was a result of the accident.

Walker v. State

155 Ind. App. 404 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1973

The evidence clearly infers that we are here concerned with one room not two. … The evidence clearly excludes the hypothesis that this was a place for social respite.

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).

Akey v. Parkview Hospital, Inc.

941 N.E.2d 540 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2011

We will reverse the court's determination only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. … Our Supreme Court has not established a specific test for the scientific admissibility of evidence pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b). See id.

Nahmias v. Trustees of Indiana University

444 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1983

We further found the limitation provision not vio-lative of either the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or of the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution … “The evidence most favorable to Toth clearly establishes that at some time prior to June 6,1970, two years before suit was commenced, Toth ceased relying on Lenk and decided to secure no further treatment from him.

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 .

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Gardner

874 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2007

However, the language of the RRA and FELA is clearly relevant to whether Congress intended for RRA payments to be setoff from a FELA award. … “Neither the employee nor the carrier is entitled to a refund of railroad retirement taxes paid on behalf of an employee who never qualifies for benefits.” Id.

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.

Griffin v. State

695 N.E.2d 1010 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1998

Furthermore, to qualify for an extension, the unavailability of a witness must simply be due to no fault of the State. Wiseman, 600 N.E.2d at 1377 . 3 . … In any event, this statute merely compels the trial court to grant a continuance in clearly delineated circumstances but does not affect the trial court’s general discretion with respect to such motions. Bates v.

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.

Walter Havvard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2015

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. … However, we have stated: a police officer or law enforcement official who is offered and qualified as an expert in the area of drugs, drug trade, drug trafficking

City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc.

95 N.E.3d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2018

Hammond alleged the enactment of HEA 1165 “confirms that Hammond qualified for the Fee Exemption in 2014. … Section 23 establishes a requirement of general laws where such can be made in all other cases. Id.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. DeVoux

161 Ind. App. 40 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1974

Further, DeVoux contends that the substantial evidence adduced at the “fair hearing”, and therefore properly before the hearing examiner, clearly establishes the appellee’s entitlement to disability benefits, and that the … court finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity

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.

Haire v. Parker

957 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2011

which clearly includes Parker who was likewise operating an ATV.” … law and does not establish the element of breach required for a negligence action.”

Johnson v. Parkview Health Systems, Inc.

801 N.E.2d 1281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2004

If the moving party meets these requirements, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish *1284 genuine issues of material fact for trial. Id. … Also, the facts which she alleged clearly indicated that Jason was a "child" for purposes of the CWDS.

Anderson v. State

157 Ind. App. 440 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1973

The trial court’s findings and conclusions to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to review the determination made by the Parole Board are clearly erroneous. Alcorn v. … At that time the board will establish the date for further consideration of the inmate’s case or authorize immediate reinstatement to parole supervision or discharge. (Ind. Parole Bd.

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

Waldron Health Care Home, Inc. v. Magnant

575 N.E.2d 343 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1991

The conclusions construe 470 LA.C. 5-4.1-6(e) and determine Waldron should have realized the regulation clearly applied to its situation. … We agree with the trial court's conclusion that: The language of 6(e) does establish a specific time frame within which the 6(e) request must be made.