Case law

Sedelbauer v. State

455 N.E.2d 1159 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1983

As the material presented here is unprotected, and the evidence indicates that Sedel-bauer worked in a store where these materials were openly displayed, the evidence is sufficient to establish scienter. … At trial, Sedelbauer attempted to qualify Charles Dennis as an expert on contemporary community standards in Allen County, Indiana.

Thomas Bunger as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kenneth K. Kinney, and Cheryl Underwood v. Sheree Demming

40 N.E.3d 887 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2015

Common-Law Agency Relationship [11] The trial court’s determination that Underwood and Demming had an agency relationship is not clearly erroneous. … Underwood argues that was error because Demming did not make a qualified settlement offer.

Downs v. State

827 N.E.2d 646 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2005

In Gardner, the defendant, though given use immunity, refused to testify against his fellow inmate in a drug case. … The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.

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.

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.

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

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.”

Pruitt v. State

557 N.E.2d 684 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1990

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a tendered instruction quoting the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution. 5. … In the present case, the separate counts of the information contain specific dates for each violation, thereby clearly defining several discrete occurrences of professional gambling.

Burkett v. American Family Insurance Group

737 N.E.2d 447 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2000

The term “It” in the last sentence of the definition clearly refers back to the subject of the paragraph- — which is the definition of the term “relative.” … Thus, under the Burketts’ approach, a cause of action under Ind.Code § 9-24-9-4(a) would not accrue until after Prewitt, Jr.’s legal liability was established.

Mary and Ronald McDaniel, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel v. Stephen W. Robertson, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance (mem. dec.)

83 N.E.3d 765 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2017

A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Johnson v. Wysocki, 990 N.E.2d 456, 460 (Ind. 2013). … scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Melton v. Stephens

13 N.E.3d 533 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2014

As such, the lex loci delicti is established in Illinois’ substantive law. B. … Relying on the Illinois precedent established in Murphy v.

Myers v. State

718 N.E.2d 783 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1999

An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ind.1993). … However, *787 the court’s written findings establish that the court did not rest its decision on Myers’ delay in filing the petition.

Howard v. State

816 N.E.2d 948 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2004

Accordingly, although the trial court did not adequately establish C.C.' … The record clearly shows that Count I differed in a factual element from Count II.

Dorothea Bragg, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc.

52 N.E.3d 908 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2016

above-quoted language and claims that “[g]iven that the DOL has no investigative or enforcement apparatus, then if any of the proposed involuntarily separated Class Members had filed their claims with the DOL, then it would clearly … all amounts at which the labor or service rendered is recompensed, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or in any other method of calculating such amount.”5 It is well-established

Wesco Distribution, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Indiana Harbour Llc. and Espu, Inc.

23 N.E.3d 682 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2014

Pursuant to 7-0-2, it is clearly not within the scope of expert testimony.” Tr. at 4239. The trial court ultimately allowed Dr. … Further, “[i]t is well-established in Indiana law that intentional first-party spoliation of evidence may be used to establish an inference that the spoliated evidence was unfavorable to the party responsible.”

Cox v. Paul

805 N.E.2d 901 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2004

Our supreme court clearly determined that based on the undisputed facts of the case, Dr. Harris breached his duty to warn. Id. at 394. … Accordingly, we conclude that the undisputed material facts establish that Dr.

Estate of Plummer v. Kaag

141 Ind. App. 142 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1966

Thereafter steps were taken in this proceeding to establish the will probated in Oregon as her will. … This legislative use of words clearly leaves it to the judiciary to determine what kind of evidence may be required. Until probate practically no legal rights are established by the paper purporting to be a will.

Dakota J. Horn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. … For a witness to be qualified as an expert, two requirements must be met. Schaefer v. State, 750 N.E.2d 787, 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Pollard

886 N.E.2d 69 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2008

The residency statute clearly increases the penalty applied to affected sex offenders by preventing those offenders from residing and taking full advantage of their ownership rights in property acquired prior to conviction … Pollard stipulated to being convicted of an offense enumerated under 35-42-4-11(a)(2) and to living within 1000 feet of qualifying property. 3 .

Hibler v. Globe American Corp.

128 Ind. App. 156 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1958

The employee’s potential right to compensation and the obligation of the employer to pay when the potential right is established spring from the contract, not from tort or an act of negligence. … If the intention to preserve and continue such right is clearly apparent, it will be carried into effect.” State ex rel. Milligan, Superintendent of Madison State Hospital v.