Case law

Paternity: James A. Barnhart v. Sara E. Davis Whitcomb

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2017

required that its students be vaccinated but, pursuant to Indiana Code section 20-34-3-2, the school allowed an unvaccinated student to attend if a parent executed a form claiming a religious objection to immunization … A judgment is also clearly erroneous when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. In re D.J. v.

Medical Assurance of Indiana v. McCarty

808 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2004

Additionally, as established by our decision in Patel, Barker is entitled to recover $1.5 million for these injuries, or one $750,000 maximum statutory recovery for each injury. … The legislature could have chosen to require a health care provider to pay up to $100,000.00 for each "injury or death of a patient" resulting from an occurrence of malpractice, but it clearly did not do so.

Lovko v. Lovko

179 Ind. App. 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1978

Lovko as an expert witness, the trial court possesses wide discretion in determining if a witness is qualified to testify as an expert, Snow v. … This case is clearly distinguishable from Husband’s cited case of Indiana Union Traction Company v.

White v. Allstate Insurance Co.

591 N.E.2d 586 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1992

Bank et al. (1978), 157 Ind.App. 236 , 299 N.E.2d 854 , have also been accepted as qualifying under this requirement. The second requirement is mutuality of estoppel. … Subsequently, the ad-ministratrices of the parents' estates attempted to have a constructive trust established for Turner's intestate share.

State v. Poindexter

517 N.E.2d 88 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1987

Parties asserting that a judgment is contrary to law must establish that the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trier of fact reached the opposite conclusion. … IC 86-5-3-2 and IC 5-10-6-1 clearly require the compensation of the clerk-treasurer's office to be established by local ordinance.

Phelps v. State

969 N.E.2d 1009 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

The minister agreed that Phelps did not qualify for his program. … Phelps did not establish a nexus between his mental health issues and the shooting of Jackson.

Jones v. State

957 N.E.2d 1033 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2011

We will reverse only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Further, the defendant must establish that he was prejudiced because of the trial court’s denial of his motion. Id. at 387 .

Potts v. Williams

746 N.E.2d 1000 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2001

Potts, MD exercised reasonable care and skill in the treatment of a patient, you must consider only the expert testimony of *1005 qualified health care providers who are members of David R. … In order for a plaintiff to carry his burden of proof, he must present evidence of probative value based on facts, or inferences to be drawn from the facts, establishing both that the wrongful act was a cause in fact of the

Lafferty v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Services

600 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1992

In addition, Lafferty claims that IDETS' role in helping him find employment with ABA also provides the necessary "good cause" to qualify for benefits. … The "modifi-eation'" provision in (c) clearly provides an exception to the general disqualification provision in (a).

Troy Stevenson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2016

charged Stevenson with Count I, Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Count II, Class D felony possession of cocaine.4 On February 28, 2014, the State then added an allegation that Stevenson qualified … It is a well-established principle that a single aggravator is sufficient to support an enhanced sentence. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

King v. State

908 N.E.2d 673 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2009

An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision clearly is against the logic and effects of the facts and ciream-stances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. … In our view, the State clearly offered the document as tending to prove that someone named Andrew King created the Yahoo!

Bollman v. Indianapolis Machinery Co.

150 Ind. App. 465 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1971

Profit Sharing Plan so as to qualify as a Member of the Indianapolis Machinery Co., Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust? “2. Were the defendants Louis J. Borinstein and Edwin E. … Appellees concede that if “regular full-time salaried employee” means one who works eight hours a day, five days a week, defendant Borinstein does not qualify.

Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.

434 N.E.2d 943 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 1982

We therefore conclude the Hahns fail to establish the Lorey disclaimer was inadmissible as a matter of law. … Acceptance of the goods clearly precludes buyer from asserting rejection as a defense.

Leever v. Leever

919 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2009

We have little trouble considering that the constructive trust's real estate in this case qualifies as a "presently fixed right to future enjoyment." Id. … The trial court, in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, concluded very clearly that "5.

Burgess v. E.L.C. Electric, Inc.

825 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2005

The claims clearly have connection with and refer to the ERISA plan. The essence of the claims is a failure to supply benefits under the plan.... Just as in Ingersoll-Rand [Co. v. … However, that the State has regulated this area does not, of itself, immunize its efforts from the effects of ERISA preemption. See id.

Irwin R. Evens & Son, Inc. v. Board of the Indianapolis Airport Authority

584 N.E.2d 576 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1992

Thus, we hold that the trial court’s construction of the contract in Electric’s favor with respect to this issue was not clearly erroneous. Time raises another issue. … However, we also observe that Time does not establish that the contract had been fully performed before Airport and Electric filed their brief or preliminary petitions.

Hammond v. GRAOCH ASSOCIATES NO. 52, LP

909 N.E.2d 1086 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2009

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … First, the decision must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed

Graham v. State

736 N.E.2d 822 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2000

Clearly, Graham failed to comply with the procedural mandate of Evid. R. 412(b). … Clearly, whether D.G. was a rebellious child has no bearing on whether she was raped by Graham. The trial court properly sustained the objection. We find no abuse of discretion.

Byrne v. Turner

139 Ind. App. 676 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1965

The evidence in the record clearly shows a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether appellant was or was not crossing within an unmarked crosswalk, thus presenting a question for jury determination. … This being the case, the instruction is required to set out all the elements essential to a recovery, and directs the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff if the jury find such elements to have been established.

Jarrett v. State

804 N.E.2d 807 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2004

It establishes conditions for sentencing and commitment to the Department of Correction. I.C. 85-38-1. … Clearly, Denise qualified as an individual who was due protection under the CPOA. That a proper petition was not filed in this case as required by the CPOA is concerning.