Case law

Thayer v. Vaughan

798 N.E.2d 249 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2003

"An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court." Id. … In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII, the Thayers had to show that (1) Cathy was a member of a protected class (ie., female); (2) she was qualified for the job in question or was

The Branham Corporation v. Newland Resources, LLC and John E. Bator

44 N.E.3d 1263 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

dismissal with prejudice in the event of nonpayment of the fees by the established deadline. … The other tort allegations, above and beyond the allegation of the ownership of the judgment against Newland, were not reduced to judgment such that they qualified as judgments owned by Branham that could

King v. Burns

860 N.E.2d 879 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2007

When the Division initiated this appeal, we agreed to expedite consideration of the appeal and established a briefing schedule that required a reply brief to be filed no later than October 27, 2006. … Clearly, it was supposed to be filed with the Division no later than July 3, 2006.

Ostrowski v. Everest Healthcare Indiana, Inc.

956 N.E.2d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2011

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case or if the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. at 1186 . … Accordingly, we cannot consider the deposition in making our determination.”), trans. denied (2003); In re D.L.M., 725 N.E.2d 981 , 983 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (noting "the well-established rule of appellate procedure that

Andrew C. Stevens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … We review its determinations for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial

Kessen v. Graft

694 N.E.2d 317 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 1998

The legislature has, however, in the current version of the statutes authorizing tax sales and tax deeds, clearly taken the position that erroneously issued deeds are merely voidable. … While I would find that attacking the deed through T.R. 60 was proper, I would find that no abuse of discretion has been established in the determination that the motion was filed too late.

Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers v. Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library

851 N.E.2d 1269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2006

As a result of the known problems with the Project and other construction projects that will be under construction in the Indianapolis metropolitan area, a number of qualified bidders may elect not to participate in a rebidding … Standard of Review The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss made under Trial Rule 41(B) is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Taflinger Farm. v. Uhl, 815 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).

Michael J. Gilliam II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2018

65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 28 2018, 10:59 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … Gilliam’s motion was filed after entry of a final judgment and, though titled otherwise, clearly constituted a motion to correct error. See Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct.

Goodwine v. Goodwine

819 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2004

Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. … The Trust instrument requires the Trustees to pay all "necessary costs and "expenses of the ownership and operation" of the farmland, enumerating a non-inclusive list of qualifying expenses. Appellant's App. p. 11.

Raquel Walters v. Brittany M. Corder, Matthew T. O'Brien, and Molly L. O'Brien

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2020

If the rules of law and the terms of the trust conflict, the terms of the trust shall control unless the rules of law clearly prohibit or restrict the article which the terms of the trust purport to … The term “children” is not defined in the terms of the trust, and the term is not qualified or restricted in any way (other than requiring the children to be “living”).

Hays v. Harmon

809 N.E.2d 460 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2004

A circuit court has broad discretion in refusing to grant a motion to strike, and the court's decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. … We therefore note that the charitable trust at issue qualifies as a personal, express, testamentary charitable trust.

Reuille v. Bowers

78 Ind. Dec. 200 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1980

Reuille presented no evidence to dispute the fact that the physical characteristics of Franke Road clearly qualify it as an intersection, except, he argues first that simply because it is a “T” intersection or side road, … A party with the burden of proof may establish a prima facie case and the jury may, nonetheless, find against him.

Richard K. Ray v. Ellyn E. Ray (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

These accounts shall be equally divided between the parties with [Richard’s] attorney preparing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(“QDRO”)]. Appellant’s Appendix at 26. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

Maurice McGraw Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2024

Evidence Rule 104 (“The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.”). 2. … McGraw has failed to establish a substantive double-jeopardy violation

Employee Benefit Managers, Inc. of America v. Indiana Department of Insurance

882 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2008

A court may only set aside agency action 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; (3) in excess … According to EBM, these Plan Documents fall exclusively under the supervisory responsibility of the United States Department of Labor, as the plans are established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA

Langbehn v. Town of Merrillville

413 N.E.2d 680 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1980

The Langbehns, being owners of land to be annexed, certainly qualified as remonstrators, but did not attempt to seek their statutory remedy. … This provision restricting standing is clearly a screening device to limit the number of annexation contests.

Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

455 N.E.2d 971 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1983

They are the duly elected and qualified members of the Tippecanoe County Board of Commissioners. … Finally, the court stated: "[We are of the opinion that the contract and ordinance assailed are both within the long settled and clearly recognized lines of police power ...

Alisa K. Wright v. A. Lance Wright (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2017

He is qualified by his experience and education[] to render an opinion assistive to the Court on business valuation. Mr. … Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous.

Collins Coal Co. v. Hadley

38 Ind. App. 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1905

Counsel for appellee seek to avoid the rule established by the eases cited, upon the ground that §285, supra, repeals §7473, supra, “as to the person who sháll bring the action.”. … Without entering into a discussion of the question thus raised, we are clearly of the opinion that the position assumed by counsel is not tenable.

Andy Mohr West, Inc. d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, and TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Office of the Ind. Sec. of State, Auto Dealer Services Div.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2015

Thus, Section 9-32-13-24(e) clearly contemplates the relocation of a “proposed [NMV] dealer.” … I.C. § 9-32-2-20(2) speaks of “proposed” dealers and “relocated” dealers, clearly implying that the former is a planned/projected dealer while the latter is an established/existing dealer.