Case law

Inman v. Inman

898 N.E.2d 1281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2009

Wife had submitted an appraisal establishing the value of F-5 as $340,000.00; Husband had proposed how to divide $340,000 in sale proceeds 4 ; and the evidence had established Husband’s “superior position to know and testify … The evidence before the trial court established Husband’s superior economic position and financial knowledge.

Central States Tower III, LLC, a/k/a Central States Tower v. Plan Commission of the City of Portage (mem. dec.)

99 N.E.3d 665 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2018

zoning decision that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Indeed, CST’s representative admitted that no such agreement existed and both the superintendent and the president of the school board stated quite clearly and firmly that no such agreement was likely

Keith L. Caldwell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2019

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 05 2019, 6:35 am court except for the purpose of establishing … “The error claimed must either ‘make[ ] a fair trial impossible’ or constitute ‘clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.’” Id. (quoting Clark v.

Bowen v. Sonnenburg

78 Ind. Dec. 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1980

It therefore clearly follows that whether Alban L. … Smith is clearly not a member of the proposed class of patient -workers, he was otherwise ineligible to participate as a party plaintiff in the cause. TR. 23(A). IV.

Carpenter v. Whitley County Plan Commission

174 Ind. App. 412 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

I dissent from the majority opinion since it has misinterpreted IC 1971, 18-7-5-19 which clearly provides for-a quorum to transact the business of the Commission “at a regular *421 or properly called special meeting. . . … The statute, IC 1971, 18-7-5-19, provides: “QUORUM — Number required for official action. — A majority of members qualified by this chapter (18-7-5-1 — 18-7-5-99) to vote, shall constitute a quorum.

Palace Bar, Inc. v. Fearnot

376 N.E.2d 1159 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1978

Defendants persuasively argue that a shareholders' immunity from personal liability is based upon the concept that the corporation is a separate legal entity, distinct from its shareholders. … Such immunity is a fundamental principle in the general law governing corporations and is one of the basic incentives for incorporating.

Vickery v. State

932 N.E.2d 678 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

Effective July 1, 2006, our legislature amended the Act to require lifetime registration for a defendant whose offense qualifies him as an SVP. See Ind.Code § 11-8-8-19. … In applying the test, the court first considers whether the legislature intended the statute to establish civil proceedings or impose punishment. Id.

Bayes v. Isenberg

429 N.E.2d 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1981

The Court of Appeals may not set aside the judgment of the trial court unless it is clearly erroneous; furthermore, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court if it can be sustained by any legal theory supported by the … It is true that property owned as an estate by entireties is immune to seizure and satisfaction of the individual debts of either husband or wife. Union Bank and Trust, supra; Myler v.

Johnson v. Wabash County

181 Ind. App. 281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1979

The court held that the plaintiff, having failed to qualify under IC 11-5-4-3 by proving that she performed “like work” of the deputy, was precluded from any recovery. … A belated jury request clearly falls within the language of this Rule. Certainly TR 38 is not among those Rules excluded from its provisions.

Ray v. State

846 N.E.2d 1064 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2006

prove this crime, the State must prove that on or about June 11, 2004, in Grant County, State of Indiana [Ray]: (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) possessed a firearm; (3) and at the time he possessed the firearm he had a qualifying … Initially, we observe, "evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible because such evidence 'has no tendency to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused.'" Bayes v.

Marcius Strawhorn and HSD of Central Indiana, LLC v. Town of Hillsboro, Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2020

We will set aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake had been made. Id.

In the Matter of: De.B., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, J.B. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2020

Id. 4 In re E.T. also established that if the business record at issue includes an opinion, the expertise of the opinion giver must be established. 808 N.E.2d at 644. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the resulting judgment. Id.

In Re JWWR

712 N.E.2d 1081 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1999

For findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, the record must lack any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … It is well established that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children.

Ramer v. Smith

896 N.E.2d 563 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2008

The rule regarding conveyances of real estate to husband and wife is well established in this state. See Simons v. Bollinger, 154 Ind. 83, 86 , 56 N.E. 23, 24 (1900). … Where the deed conveying property to a husband and wife contains no qualifying words, the grantees take and hold the estate as tenants by the entirety. Richards v.

Meury v. Eagle-Union Community School Corp.

714 N.E.2d 233 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1999

In an apparent effort to establish a malicious intent for including the letter with Eric’s transcripts, the complaint provides background information on Carol and Herman’s strained relationship with Hodgkin and the school … The Defendants set out additional reasons to support entry of the dismissal including: the failure to properly allege official capacity liability and qualified immunity for Hodgkin, Schroeder, and Keneipp.

In the Matter of M.C. and D.M. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and P.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2017

“A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard.” Id. at 1002. … Mother objected on the basis that Alderman was “not qualified to speak on that,” “was not inside the house,” and “does not know the people who have come and gone.” Id.

Stone v. Manship

505 N.E.2d 155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1987

Stone argues this section does not apply to him because "[ujnder the arrangement established by the appellee, the appellant was not an employee or other person under the terms of IC 16-6-8-4(b)(8) above. … Thus, the fact Manship was Stone's employee cannot support Stone's argument he does not qualify under this section.

Agav Properties, Avrohem Tkatch, and Elisheva Tkatch v. The City of South Bend and The South Bend Fire Department

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 2014

Although qualified to generally inspect the premises for fire hazards,3 there is no indication that Captain Fleming is or was at the time an electrical inspector. … And the Plaintiffs present no argument that the trial court erred in its immunity determination.

Stewart v. Stewart

521 N.E.2d 956 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1988

Baker ran a complete blood count and a test on Thomas' immune system. These tests were essentially normal. Although Thomas does not have AIDS, Dr. … "The facts in the instant case clearly showed the Thompsons did not live in Indiana.

Bajdek v. Board of Trustees of American Legion Pulaski Post No. 357 Trust

132 Ind. App. 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1961

In my judgment the Post would be entirely within its rights in establishing a trust fund consisting of the assets referred to in the communication for the class of beneficiaries set out therein. … If income is employed solely to further a moral or ethical purpose, the enterprise qualifies for a non profit status. Howard L. deck, NonProfit Corporations and Associations (1956), p. 109.”