Case law

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and Terry L. Brown, Jr. v. The Guardianship of Kristen Zak (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2018

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing FILED the defense of res judicata, collateral … While the TPIS sets forth the requirements to ensure that a party qualifies for prejudgment interest, it does not contain the requirement that a request for prejudgment interest be filed prior to judgment

CULVER-UNION TP. AMBULANCE SERV. v. Steindler

611 N.E.2d 698 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1993

He observed, however, "that Congress has seen no need to establish a uniform approach" in § 1983 actions. … Wegman, infra . [9] Other limitations and impediments to § 1983 actions exist and are readily applied, e.g., immunity of some officers, rejection of punitive damages.

The Estate of Robert Curtis, Sr., by its Personal Representative Theresa Brady v. Geico Geneeral Insurance Company

71 N.E.3d 1157 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2017

Standard of Review [7] Our standard of review on summary judgment is well established: We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable … App. 1993) (finding that a passenger’s random act of violence did not qualify for coverage); Miller v. Loman, 518 N.E.2d 486, 492-93 (Ind. Ct.

Lowenmeyer v. National Lumber Co.

71 Ind. App. 458 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

subsequently on October 6, 1914, an order was entered thereon adjudging. said coal company a bankrupt; that on said date the Central Trust Company of Illinois was duly appointed a trustee in bankruptcy of said coal company, duly qualified … The special finding of facts clearly shows that said foreign corporation, Harmon Coal Company, for a period of more than one year, did transact a coal business for profit, from and upon the real estate in question, without

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.M. and D.M. (Minor Children), M.M. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2017

All rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations, any rights to custody, parenting time or 3 The trial court did not make a determination that the conditions that resulted in Children’s removal … Instead, it needs to establish only that a “reasonable probability” exists that a parent’s behavior will not change. Id.

Payne v. State

854 N.E.2d 7 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

Seldin's "testimony" that Payne introduced evidence to establish that she was naive and very susceptible to being influenced. … At trial, Carter, a State's witness, refused to testify despite being offered use immunity and being ordered to testify by the trial court.

L.H. Controls, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor, Inc.

974 N.E.2d 1031 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2012

LH Controls breached the Contract by failing to provide properly qualified, fully experienced, and competent personnel. 9. … The undisputed evidence establishes that CCI waived reliance on the alleged conditions precedent to final payment.

Christina Armstrong v. Katherine Armstrong

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2025

We may reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant’s brief establishes prima facie error. Id. … We do not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id.

Michael Litton v. Jason Baugh

122 N.E.3d 1034 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2019

A judgment is also clearly erroneous when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id. … The court, in its discretion, may honor the infant’s or incompetent’s choice of next friend or guardian ad litem, but the court may deny approval or remove a person who is not qualified.

Yoon v. Yoon

687 N.E.2d 201 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1997

The findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, i.e., if the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. … Sunsook objected on the ground that Jay was not qualified to provide expert testimony and the trial court sustained the objection.

Adrian Durden v. State of Indiana

83 N.E.3d 1232 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. Id. … Moreover, to establish that the right is not infringed, the trial court must establish the record to support removal of a deliberating juror, just as a record is required to establish bias of a

David Darst v. Indiana Dept. of Correction and Bruce Lemmon in his official capacity as Commissioner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2012

Darst has not presented any argument concerning Commissioner Lemmon’s immunity, and we affirm the dismissal of Darst’s claim against Commissioner Lemmon. … directed by Indiana law, and in failing to establish the supervision of prison van transport officers.”

State of Indiana v. Robert Lee Engram (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2019

While the evidence establishes that Partlow shot Jones, Engram was convicted of murder on a theory of accomplice liability. … [10] Engram, like Newson, was convicted of murder and qualified under the statute as a violent criminal.

Patterson v. State

742 N.E.2d 4 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2000

The results of the DNA analysis established that the *7 blood on the curtains inside Maciejewski’s home was consistent with Patterson’s DNA. … Because DNA testing was clearly not on the minds of the framers of the Federal Constitution, we utilize the traditional standards of reasonableness in addressing the subsequent testing of Patterson’s DNA.

In Re the Adoption of: N.I.D. (Minor Child), and C.C. (Mother) v. R.P. and K.P.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2020

Whether such placement qualifies as “custody of the child” could be argued. … C.C. argues that R.P. and K.P. did not qualify as nonagency guardians.

Courtney R. Robbins v. The Trustees of Indiana University and Clarian Health Partners, Inc.

45 N.E.3d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2015

Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 682 (Ind.1997), a plurality of our supreme court “decline[d] to recognize” the tort, notwithstanding the insistence of two justices that “[f]or almost half a century, Indiana courts have clearly … See, e.g,, Doe v, Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 22 N.Y.3d 480 , 982 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 5 N.E.3d 578, 581 (2014) (“A medical corporation may ... be liable in tort for faffing to establish adequate policies and procedures to safeguard

Victor Fointno v. Clair Barnes

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2013

In a single order, the trial court denied Fointno’s motion for summary judgment, found that Fointno failed to meet his burden of proof, found that all of the Defendants were immune from liability under the Indiana Tort … Trial Rule 52(A) (providing that on appeal, a judgment shall not be set aside where “tried by the court without a jury … unless clearly erroneous”).

Black v. State

829 N.E.2d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2005

"To qualify as a fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind.2002)). … The fundamental error exception to the waiver rule is an extremely narrow one, "available only when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic elementary principles of due process, and the harm or potential for

Christopher Allen Peacock v. State of Indiana

126 N.E.3d 892 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2019

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish proper venue. Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1233 (Ind. 1991). … To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Id.

Michael Thalheimer v. Ramon and Stacey Halum

973 N.E.2d 1145 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2012

Keenan was qualified as a skilled witness to establish the standard of care in installing this type of floor. … Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made.