Case law

Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC d/b/a Golden Living v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2020

this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 10 2020, 10:44 am court except for the purpose of establishing … agency’s action if it is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Graves Trucking, Inc. v. B. G. Trucking Co.

151 Ind. App. 563 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1972

commission shall, after hearing ascertain and determine that the proposed operation, as requested in the application, meets all of the requirements of contract carriage, as defined in this act; and that the applicant is qualified … Hopkin’s testimony has obviously established nothing.

Lisa Baushke v. Eric Miller (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2017

[Father] filed a Petition [t]o Establish Paternity on May 24, 2013. … Feb. 7, 2016), that even where a court’s order does not amount to a final judgment or qualify as an interlocutory order under Ind.

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, Gross Income Tax Division

433 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1982

Clearly, Reynolds’ presence in Indiana for this purpose is established by its numerous sales offices and salesmen, warehouse facilities with the attendant employees, property, manufacturing plant, and sales in the audit period … Clearly a ‘nexus’ with the state has been established with regard to non-house account sales in the southern ter *12 ritory. General Motors Corp. v. Washington, supra.” 255 Ind. at 536-37 , 265 N.E.2d 704 .

Swain v. Bowers

91 Ind. App. 307 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1927

It is our duty to uphold and give effect to the will, if possible, without violating any established rules of law. … Remainders will only be held to be contingent where the intention to create such interest is clearly manifested by the words of the instrument. . . .

Walters v. Kellam & Foley, Mussett, Nicholas & Stevenson, Inc.

172 Ind. App. 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1977

Here, the substantive law establishes the standard of care which must be met, i.e., reasonable care. … After first qualifying his expert witness, plaintiff’s attorney asked: “Q. Mr.

Russell Goodman v. Stephanie Goodman

94 N.E.3d 733 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2018

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id.

Indiana State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors Ex Rel. Little v. Kaufman

463 N.E.2d 513 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 1984

The decision and the Board's interpretation of the regulation upon which the decision was based are contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity. 7. … The statutes governing funeral directors and embalmers contain a number of sections whose purpose clearly include the public health and sanitation in the disposal or burial of dead human bodies.

John Barnhart v. State of Indiana

15 N.E.3d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2014

screen administered to I.S. on the basis that the only available avenue to the defense to introduce such evidence was via hearsay, the test did not meet the scientific reliability standards set forth in Daubert, no witness qualified … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances presented. Id.

Podgorny v. Great Central Insurance Co.

160 Ind. App. 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 1974

The assertion of conclusions of law or opinions by one not qualified to testify to such, by affidavit, will not suffice. Renn v. Davidson’s Southport Lumber Co., Inc. (1973), 157 Ind. … On trial, where the evidence can be weighed, the presumption casts upon Podgorny the burden of clearly establishing the asserted lack of jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Wait

947 N.E.2d 951 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2011

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a qualified exception to the general rule that the mere fact of injury will not create an inference of negligence.” Syfu v. Quinn, 826 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

D.B.M. v. State Ex Rel. A.R.

702 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1998

A child support order is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court. McGinley-Ellis v. Ellis, 638 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind.1994). I. … Use of the qualifying language “if pursued and applied for” means that the income is contingent upon Father’s initiatives.

McMahan v. Snap on Tool Corp.

478 N.E.2d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1985

We decide only that the Trial Rule 56(C) evidence in the record does not clearly show that there was no question that Snap On's action was initiated against McMahan beyond the relevant statute of limitations period, and that … Documents attached to the answers to interrogatories were neither sworn statements nor certified exhibits (R. 24-27) and, therefore, were not qualified for consideration. See Freson v.

Bayley v. Fox

671 N.E.2d 133 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1996

. > The Company has not established that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the counts charged in the complaint, from a violation of the securities act, to breach of contract, to fraud. … Therefore, the trial court was a court of "competent jurisdiction" whose order qualifies as an exception to the time limitation of the NASD. The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss the complaint.

State v. Fromme

930 N.E.2d 1169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2010

Indiana Code § 35-87-6-9, which establishes the viectim-advocate privilege, has never been interpreted. … About a year later, the legislature responded by enacting a statute establishing a viectim-sexual assault counselor privilege.

Sullivan v. City of Evansville

728 N.E.2d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2000

The Commissioner was acting as judge, a duty he clearly may assume under the statute if his appointment is procedurally correct. … Clearly, as the supreme court *190 concluded in Floyd v.

Barbara L. Mack (individually) and Barbara L. Mack, Grandmother/Custodian and Next Friend of Jaylan N. Brown, a minor child v. Christine A. Amiott, Harold S. Burchfield (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2015

Although insurers may limit coverage, “such limitations must be clearly expressed to be enforceable.” State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. … If she was a covered Insured under Coroy’s Safe Auto policy on the date of the accident, Mack qualified for uninsured motorists coverage under the policy terms once Safe Auto denied coverage under

Cundiff v. Schmitt Development Co.

649 N.E.2d 1063 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1995

In deciding whether to grant an application for primary plat approval under this scheme, the Commission is required to "determine if the plat or subdivision qualifies for primary approval under the standards pre-seribed by … The record clearly demonstrates that the Commission did not vote to adopt any written findings of fact, as an administrative body, at its October meeting.

County Department of Public Welfare v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Indiana Council 62

416 N.E.2d 153 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1981

The agreement established a wage plan and other terms of employment for police officers. … The absence of such clearly defined authority often leads to frustration and instability in labor relations.” (Footnotes omitted.)

S.C.S. v. B.R.A.

645 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1995

S.B.A. was born out of wedlock to Mother and Father on May 4, 1983. 1 Father filed a petition to establish the paternity of S.B.A. on April 8, 1992. … Specifically, Petitioner's isolated purchase of ice capade ticket, and school books and gifts to child of clothing do not qualify as significant support of child. Record, p. 477. .