Case law

Silvers v. Brodeur

682 N.E.2d 811 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 1997

Assume finally that it developed subsequently that the attorney had not investigated the facts or the law and was clearly wrong in his advice. … prevailing in case and existence of legal malpractice claim); Peeler, 909 S.W.2d at 501-502 (Phillips, C.J., dissenting) (actual innocence of convicted defendant to whom attorney failed to convey offer of transactional immunity

Robert D. Rivard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2019

Searches of probationers and community corrections participants who have either consented or been clearly informed that the conditions of the probation or community corrections program unambiguously authorized … The plea agreement contains no qualifying language regarding the level of suspicion required, if any, that must be satisfied before a search could be conducted.

S.H. v. M.A. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2018

Your just trying to turn it around and manipulate me I see all of it so clearly now because it’s always been about [M.A.] and you know what? It still is. Ex. A. … As this Court has stated before, “mutual communication between two parties [does not qualify] as harassment within the meaning of the stalking statute.” Maurer v.

Fifth Third Bank v. Kohl's Indiana, L.P.

918 N.E.2d 371 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2009

Yet once the letter of credit is established, the issuer becomes statutorily obligated to honor drafts drawn by the beneficiary that comply with the terms of the credit." J. White & R. … The issuer is immune from responsibilities to police the underlying transaction because it lacks control over it, or possibly even knowledge of it. See Bank of Newport v. First National Bank, 687 F.2d at 1261-62.

State Ex Rel. Van Buskirk v. WAYNE TP., ETC.

418 N.E.2d 234 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1981

Clearly, the legislature intended that the poor should receive necessary relief. The nature and extent of such relief are necessarily left in large part within the sound discretion of the Trustee. … There seems no need for the use of the qualifying word “emergency” in either situation.

Strickler v. SLOAN, ETC.

127 Ind. App. 370 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 1, 1957

This is true, when qualified, since it does not apply to legal conclusions which are pleaded in a complaint. Works’ Indiana Practice, Lowe’s Revision, Vol. 1, §14.37, p. 564, with cases cited. … In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court said: “The cases establish that the manufacturer of a machine or any other article

In Re Adoption of M.L. J.H. v. J.L. and C.L.

973 N.E.2d 1216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2012

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Adoptive Parents had established all three grounds for dispensing with Father’s consent. … At the hearing, it was established that Father had a long history of drug use, mental health issues, frequent moves, and frequent changes in employment.

Dedric Thompson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 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, … We accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not give deference to the court’s conclusions of law. Id.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2018

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 30 2018, 8:53 am court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Greg Allen Const. Co., Inc. v. Estelle

762 N.E.2d 760 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2002

On November 19, 1996, McGaughey and the Estelles learned that the value of the property with the proposed renovations would be only $89,000, not enough to qualify for the requested loan. … Pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), we may not reverse unless the court's judgment is clearly erroneous. B.

Rose A. Martiradonna f/k/a Rose A. Rynberk v. Gilbert W. Rynberk (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2015

We cannot say that its conclusion is clearly against the facts and circumstances of the case. … [30] “[I]t is well established in Indiana that ‘future earnings are not considered part of the marital estate for purposes of property division.’” Severs v.

Colman v. Heidenreich

366 N.E.2d 686 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1977

The prosecutor also *688 informed Colman that immunity from criminal prosecution would be given to his female client, if she would come forward and identify herself. … it is obvious that the privilege was not waived by Colman's limited revealment of part of the conversation, since the male client is the only one who could waive the privilege. [1] Tabereaux contends that Colman has not clearly

Murphy v. State

475 N.E.2d 42 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1985

As our law clearly allows, the state must establish an independent source for an in-court identification by demonstrating through clear and convincing evidence that the witness/es did have, at some time independent of any … Robbery, Class B, was established. See Manley v. State (1980), Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1338 .

Parker v. Indiana State Fair Board

992 N.E.2d 969 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2013

We conclude that the 4-H Affidavit, which Jordan and Cheryl signed, clearly and unambiguously bound them to the terms of the Handbook. … Although not labeled as such, the Parkers’ motion was clearly a motion for partial summary judgment only.

Robinson v. Indiana University

638 N.E.2d 435 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

In Riggin, Ball State's board of trustees had established a university senate to advise the Board with respect to faculty employment issues. … The legislature has clearly narrowed the seope of the Open Door Law's effect as it applies to various committees.

Salin Bank and Trust Co. v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. DEPT. OF WORKFORCE DEV.

698 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1998

If claimant is eligible and is qualified otherwise, she is entitled to benefits. As noted above, Salin now appeals the award of unemployment compensation benefits to Hatfield. … It is true that a claimant has the burden of establishing that a voluntary termination of employment is for good cause. Indianapolis Osteopathic Hosp. v. Jones, 669 N.E.2d 431, 433 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

Linda Huffman, Individually and as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Jerry Huffman v. Dexter Axle Company & Evans Equipment Co.

990 N.E.2d 947 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2013

As an Evans employee tasked to haul Dexter axles, the law clearly places Huffman in the category of a business visitor. … Buirell also held that social guests qualify as invitees. Here, there is no dispute; Huffman was not a social guest of Dexter. .

Stephanie Leffler v. Dustin Verbosky (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2017

A decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court. Id. A. … Moreover, the trial court also clearly believed the child support issue had been settled with finality.

MOORE, TRUSTEE, ETC. v. Fletcher, Etc. Admrs.

136 Ind. App. 478 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1964

Ohio Oil Company is a corporation foreign to the State of Indiana but duly qualified to do business, there in. 2. Defendant Robert B. … E. 6 , have established criterion to determine the particularity which is required in a complaint.

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF NAT. R. v. Lehman

378 N.E.2d 31 · 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.