Case law

Ross v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

150 Ind. App. 428 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1971

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is not to test the sufficiency of the pleadings, but is to enable the court “by piercing the pleadings, to establish the existence, or conversely, the non-existence of a material … Unlike negligence cases, the undisputed facts are not juxtaposed against the standard of a reasonable man, but rather such facts are interpreted against a specific policy provision, and there are certain situations which clearly

Kerkhof v. Kerkhof

703 N.E.2d 1108 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1998

Therefore, the issue before us is not whether the trial court was required to treat the facts stated in the request for admissions as conclusively established, clearly it was so required, but whether the trial court’s eviden-tiary … Such a reliance could qualify as prejudice that would preclude withdrawal of the admissions. Gary, 550 N.E.2d at 831 . However, the trial court may consider whether such reliance was reasonable.

Sonny Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2018

In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. … the authority to grant use immunity to witnesses and obviate the self-incrimination privilege of the fifth amendment.”

Allied Fidelity Insurance v. State

413 N.E.2d 963 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1980

The act opened with a definitional section in which the General Assembly established the terminological foundation necessary to any comprehensive statutory enactment. … The portion of bond form enacted in 1905 was clearly intended to be used by both personal and corporate sureties. The 1927 addition to the form appears to have been designed for use by a personal surety.

In Re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.W. (Minor Child) and A.H. (Mother) and D.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2020

App. 2020) (holding drug test results qualify as business records), trans. not sought, and In re A.B., 133 N.E.3d 754 (Ind. Ct. … In light of the applicable clear and convincing evidence standard, we review to determine whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and whether the findings clearly and convincingly

Greer v. Buss

918 N.E.2d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2009

When the offender registry was established, Greer was notified that he would be required to register as a sex offender for a period of ten years after he was paroled. … Even more clearly does the ex post facto analysis apply to whether Maggi was required to register a second time.

Bunch v. State

964 N.E.2d 274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

We therefore hold the post-conviction court clearly erred in denying her petition for post-conviction relief on this claim. III. Brady Violation In Brady v. … The post-conviction court also clearly erred in determining Bunch was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of a Brady violation by the State.

Noble County Board of Commissioners v. Fahlsing

714 N.E.2d 1134 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1999

Specifically, the County maintains that the home exemption provision does not include accessory structures and that, even if it did, the structure does not qualify as an accessory structure. … Clearly a house is a building while a home seems to imply something more.

Styck v. Karnes

462 N.E.2d 1327 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1984

Read in conjunction with IC 29-1-18-5, this mandate clearly is not without qualification. The natural parent must be “properly performing his duties as natural guardian.” IC 29-1-18-6. … Because the guardian of the person is, by definition, vested with custody of the ward, see IC 29-1-18-1(a), it logically follows that proceedings to establish or terminate a guardianship are one of the “other proceeding^]

B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

covering any other business or place of business for the conduct of it in such a way as to prevent or inhibit the holder of a liquor retailer’s permit from being qualified … ordinance . . . covering any other business or place of business for the conduct of it in such a way as to prevent or inhibit the holder of a liquor retailer’s permit from being qualified

Estate of Owen v. Lyke

855 N.E.2d 603 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2006

She asserts Owen's appointment of trustees for the property diminished her rights in the "clearly stated life estate." 5 (Br. of Appellee at 7-8.) … The language ... clearly conveys the testatrix's intent to give [her son] the opportunity to buy the farm[.]").

Jason B. Saunders v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2012

More particularly, to qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Willey v. … Saunders’s probation officer also established that he had amassed two other convictions.

Newby v. State

701 N.E.2d 593 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1998

of establishing probable cause. … Thus, some showing that the informant did not possess illusions of immunity might well be essential. Id. (citations and parentheticals omitted).

Linton v. Davis

887 N.E.2d 960 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2008

The statute established the framework for pursuing medical malpractice claims in Indiana. … Number [2]: In 2000, Nurse [Prcevski] was qualified to start and stop Pitocin without a physician’s order.

Segally v. Ancerys

486 N.E.2d 578 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1985

More recently, this Court has observed that the moving party bears the burden of establishing that there exists no issue of material fact. … For those reasons, we believe that Segally has failed to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist.

New York Cent. RR Co. v. Wyatt, Admrx.

135 Ind. App. 205 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1962

to keep a reasonable lookout; failure to maintain proper control of the train; and permitting its engine to be operated by a “young and inexperienced employee who was not regularly employed as an engineer and who was not qualified … A review of the record demonstrates clearly that the trial court did not treat the crossing in question as a public crossing.

Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Jones

953 N.E.2d 608 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2011

Restated, if a person qualifies as an insured under the liability section of the policy, he must also qualify under the uninsured motorists section or the insurance contract violates public policy. Connell v. … Our established principles for interpreting insurance exclusions under the present circumstances guide us to a different result.

Hapner v. State

699 N.E.2d 1200 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1998

Johnson’s acceptance of C-Tech’s work was established as a matter of law. … Tatom, 546 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind.1989) and holding that dismissal of State on immunity grounds precluded it from being named non-party).

Ethyl Corp. v. Forcum-Lannom Associates, Inc.

433 N.E.2d 1214 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1982

Clearly the plain meaning of the contract called for the builder to “design and construct” the addition “in conformance with all current and applicable codes, rules, regulations and standards,” and it placed responsibility … Scatterday, Inc., supra, a “qualified builder,” Scatterday, agreed to design and construct a new building to adjoin an existing building in a “skillful, careful and workmanlike manner.”

Devante Shakur Foster v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2026

[9] A police report from November 30, 2021, established that Foster was the driver of the Mustang approximately two weeks before the Loomis robbery. … During that conference, the State expressed concern that Moore appeared to believe his guilty plea had conferred immunity from additional charges for any recantation at trial, which was incorrect; the