Case law

Joseph A. Taylor v. Sgt. Rinehart

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.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 … In our previous opinion, we clearly held that the trial court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Taylor’s complaint, so dismissal was appropriate.

Wayde Coleman v. Marion County Treasurer and Marion County Auditor (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2018

The County argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed facts negated at least one element of Coleman’s claims and because it had affirmative defenses, including immunity under … “[B]oth our appellate rules as well as applicable case law clearly indicate that when appealing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must file with the appellate court those

Prader v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

113 Ind. App. 518 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1943

foreman who instructed him to go to the village of Hanna, Indiana, some six miles distant, for the purpose of procuring a “rule book” through which he was to familiarize himself with the duties of a flagman and thereby qualify … If and when interstate business is clearly a part of the subject to be legislated on, the fact that intrastate commerce may be interwoven therewith does not prevent the Congress from exercising its powers.”

Joshua Walker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s judgment “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Id. … Walker contends this alleged inability to hire qualified employees made Duvall employees more susceptible to corruption.

Jermaine Thornton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Conley v. … Under Evidence Rule 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and “[o]nly one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert

Davis v. State

476 N.E.2d 127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1985

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court. … The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court.

Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Schuler

909 N.E.2d 1040 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2009

When a statement contains within it another statement, each layer of hearsay must qualify under an exception to the hearsay rule before the evidence at issue is admissible. Barger v. … As such, the trial court's determination that Irmscher and Pella breached the implied warranty of merchantability is not clearly erroneous.

In Re Estate of Grotrian

76 Ind. Dec. 331 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1980

As clearly established by the cases where the transferor retains a life estate in the property, the only interest succeeded to by the transferee upon the transferor's death is the present possessory interest. … These combined facts establish that Wilbur's "Class" is not relevant to this issue. To determine this tax liability under Class A rates and exemptions is clearly in violation of legislative intent.

State Ex Rel. Medical Licensing Board v. Brady

492 N.E.2d 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1986

The Board was required to establish only two elements in order to prevail on its petition. … The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression whether it takes the form of pure speech or conduct which is sufficiently communicative to qualify as symbolic speech. Spence v.

Gallagher v. Marion County Victim Advocate Program, Inc.

74 Ind. Dec. 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1980

But the legislature has not chosen to do more than authorize in general terms the Board of Public Safety to establish, regulate and operate a police system. §§ 48-6101, 48-6102, Burns’ 1933. … The Act is clearly not a mere codification of the common law, however. We consider the common law in this case only as an object of comparison. . See Wallace v.

Steinrock Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. McCulloch

965 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2012

Substantial evidence was presented at trial establishing that the contractor’s work was deficient in a number of respects. … The inquiry of whether Steinrock is still open made by McCulloch to Tara Hunter does not qualify as a defamatory statement. 24.

Whedon v. State

900 N.E.2d 498 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2009

The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 643 (Ind.2008). … Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) provides: (a) If 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 as an expert

Molargik v. West Enterprises, Inc.

605 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1993

Was the trial court's finding that dirt from the Molargiks' property caused 50% of West's damages clearly erroneous? … A judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings and conclusions.

Milliner v. State

890 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2008

That conviction established Milliner as a sex offender and required that he register as such. … When does a cardboard box under a bridge qualify as a "home address?" A park bench? What about a pile of rags next to a trash bin?

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III of Marion County, Indiana v. Traders Point Association of Neighborhoods, Kenneth F. Zahora (TRS), Cherie L. Zahora (TRS)

81 N.E.3d 1120 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2017

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The facts set forth above clearly established Three Mile as the equitable owner of the Property. Gurpreet, as the registered agent of Three Mile, was therefore properly listed on the Application.

Walther v. Indiana Lawrence Bank

579 N.E.2d 643 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1991

The essence of the program was that for each qualified loan a bank made to a farmer, the State would deposit matching funds with that bank in the form of a certificate of deposit. … Indiana has not statutorily nor through case law clearly established a statute of limitations for RICO violations.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.N., Minor Child and his Father, M.D.N. v. Indiana Department of Chiild Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2013

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … Rather, Father’s “sole argument on appeal is that mentally retarded parents should be immune from losing their parental rights.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13.

Public Service Indiana, Inc. v. Nichols

494 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1986

If the testimony is in an area in which the jurors are as well-qualified as the expert to form an opinion, the testimony should not be permitted. Id. … The trial transcript clearly illustrates that the problem of stray voltage is a complex area of electricity requiring special knowledge to understand both the causes of and solutions for the problem.

Armstrong v. Cerestar USA, Inc.

775 N.E.2d 360 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2002

Indiana Evidence Rule 702 requires that an expert be qualified as such by his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. … Because Armstrong’s expert’s testimony submitted to establish causation failed to meet the Indiana Evidence Rule 702 admissibility test, there is no credible evidence that establishes that the sludge at issue as handled produced

Terry E. Garber, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2020

Garber has failed to establish harmful error, much less fundamental error, in this regard. B. Dr. … This does not quite qualify as impermissible vouching. See, e.g., Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, 71 N.E.3d 887, 893 (Ind. Ct.