Case law

State ex rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Lehman

177 Ind. App. 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1978

His contrary findings, as the evidence clearly reveals, did not require a reweighing of the evidence. CHARGE: Using a state-owned vehicle for personal use. … How was it established that they were not to do it if there is no written rule or regulation. A. Well, you just did not use State property for your own personal use. That seems — Q.

Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Bill Gaddis Chrysler Dodge, Inc., Garrett Gaddis and Edward Foster

973 N.E.2d 1179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2012

The trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. … Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence. Indiana Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855, 858 (Ind. 2000).

Browning & Herdrich Oil Co., Inc. v. Hall

489 N.E.2d 988 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1986

When reviewing a case in which the trial court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court will not set aside the trial court's judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Ind. … CODE 32-4-1.5 a joint bank account does not qualify as a common law gift because the donor does not surrender dominion. Browning attempts to escape the rather obvious consequences of IND.

Doe v. Daviess County Division of Children & Family Services

669 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1996

To effect the termination of a parent-child relationship, the State must establish the elements of Ind.Code 81-6-5-4(c) by clear and convincing evidence. J.K.C. v. … The trial court's findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Anthony Henderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 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, … disagree. 1 Based on our review of the record, it does not appear that Henderson admitted to being a habitual offender or that the trial court made a finding as to whether Henderson qualified

O'Connor v. Overall Laundry, Inc.

98 Ind. App. 29 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1932

They were here attempting to qualify under Section 10 of the ordinance, although neither the ordinance nor this section had been pleaded. … This was clearly unnecessary and an abuse of discretion if the court was proceeding under the guise of obtaining testimony necessary for the proper disposition of this matter.

Little v. Progressive Insurance

783 N.E.2d 307 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2003

To qualify as an "insured" under a policy of automobile insurance, parties must either be the named insured or establish that they were a driver or occupant of a covered vehicle involved in an accident. Lee R. … The declarations page clearly indicated that he and Little were not paying for Little to have uninsured motorist coverage.

Newland Resources, LLC v. Branham Corp.

918 N.E.2d 763 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

The evidence establishes that the Town of Whitestown paid BCU $4,200,000.00 pursuant to The Whitestown Purchase Agreement, an agreement that also established Whites-town would assume the obligations of BCU to Valenti pursuant … or harmful error, to grant a new trial on a motion to correct error if the court determines that the jury verdict is 'against the weight of the evidence," and to enter judgment if it determines that the jury verdict is 'clearly

Matthew Pavlovich v. State of Indiana

6 N.E.3d 969 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2014

Taken together, this evidence establishes a reasonable probability that the messages at issue were written by Pavlovich. … Clearly, because there is sufficient evidence to authenticate the messages as having been written by Pavlovich, they qualify as non-hearsay statements by a party-opponent under Indiana Evidence Rule 801(d)(2). 7 The messages

Hawkins v. Marion County Board of Review

182 Ind. App. 205 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1979

In March, 1977, the Hawkins attempted to file an affidavit of mortgage indebtedness with Forestal, the County Auditor, in order to qualify them for the mortgage tax deduction authorized by Ind. Code 6-1.1-12-1. … The Hawkins contend that, in order to establish whether a conditional vendee is entitled to a mortgage exemption, it is necessary first to determine whether such vendee is one who “owns real property” within the meaning of

Williamson Co. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

145 Ind. App. 266 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1969

Claimant is entitled to benefits only to the extent he is able to work, available for work, making an independent effort to secure work and is otherwise qualified under the Act.” … In this particular case it is questionable whether such evidence clearly satisfies the test of substantial evidence of probative value, pursuant to the definitions set out above.

O'BANION v. State Ex Rel. Shively

146 Ind. App. 223 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1969

It is well-established that lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter in such situation is properly presented by demurrer, not by motion to dismiss. Indiana Acts 1881 (Spec. … It is well established that the burden of proving the existence of a non-conforming use is on the party asserting the existence of such non-conforming use.

Howard v. Moore

580 N.E.2d 999 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1991

Thus, the award of $140.00 monthly was clearly in the nature of support, as Moore was charged with keeping and maintaining the family residence. … The trial court can then make a determination as to the amount of attorney's fees qualifying as nondischargeable debt. In all other things, the trial court is affirmed. BUCHANAN and SHIELDS, JJ., concur. 2 .

City of Fort Wayne v. Cameron

53 Ind. Dec. 92 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1976

Following the decision in Aaron , which re-established the common law basis of liability and determined the statute to be procedural, the Court in Galbreath v. … The Court reiterated the principle that when one seeks the benefit of a statute, he must bring himself clearly within its terms.

Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. City of Anderson

176 Ind. App. 410 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1978

The “six-mile” authority on which Anderson relies is clearly established by two statutes. IND. … The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. 4 . Ind.

Lake States Insurance Co. v. Tech Tools, Inc.

743 N.E.2d 314 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2001

alighting from" or "getting out of" an automobile: We believe the proper determination of whether an individual is "alighting from" or "getting out of" an automobile requires the examination of several factors which may establish … Therefore, because Miller never intended to reach a zone of safety, he had clearly embarked upon a course of conduct distinct from acts reasonably necessary to make an exit from the car. Id.

Foust v. William E. English Foundation

118 Ind. App. 484 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1948

English, including the establishment of a William E. … The provision of the will creating the trust clearly indicates testator desired this home to be built on other property if it was not feasible to build it on the property in question.

Whitaker v. State

778 N.E.2d 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2002

Now, to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter the offense committed must be battery, or one that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury and is a Class C or D felony or Class A misdemeanor. 5 Clearly, since at … infractions standing alone amount to "reckless driving” as defined by Indiana Code Section 9-21-8-52(a), although driving "at such an unreasonably high rate of speed” as to endanger the safety or property of others may qualify

Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Limited, Convey All, LLC, Keller Trucking, Inc., K&K Aggregate, Inc., Huber Transport, LLC, Triple H Trucking, LLC, and Custom Hauling, Inc.

112 N.E.3d 1106 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2018

[12] The overarching question in this appeal is whether the Defendants have established as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely filed. … Vol. 2 at 6, which suggests that extended factual development may be required to establish the accrual date for each Plaintiff.

Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Bradley

462 N.E.2d 1321 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 1984

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Issue I: Shield Law The shield law is IND.CODE 34-3-5-1 as follows: “Newspapers, television and radio stations — Press associations — Employees and representatives — Immunity. … However, a witness is not exonerated from answering because he judges that in doing so, he would incriminate himself; that is, “his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination”. Hoffman v.