Case law

McCarty v. Sanders

805 N.E.2d 894 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2004

recoverable for "an injury or death of a patient" may not exceed $750,000.00 for an act of malpractice that occurred during the time period at issue. 1 During the time period at issue, Ind.Code § 34-18-14-8(b) provided that a qualified … Jacob's filing of a petition demanding payment of damages from the Fund is sufficient to establish his standing as a "claimant" under the statute.

Garner v. State

754 N.E.2d 984 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2001

Reliability may be inferred if a statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or in the event the hearsay exception warrants admission, but if the exception fails to qualify as firmly rooted, the State must show … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Id.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: X.S. (Minor Child), and S.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (mem. dec.)

117 N.E.3d 601 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2018

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous only when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them.” Id. … The order clearly states that Father did indeed request an attorney.

In re the Change to the Established Water Level of Lake of the Woods

822 N.E.2d 1032 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2005

The two (2) viewers appointed by the court: (1) must be reputable freeholders; (2) may not be qualified to sign the petitions; (8) may not be related to an affected landowner; and (4) must be residents of a county in which … reviewing court, and the decision should be reversed only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Marquis T. Wilcox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2018

Wilcox claimed that he “would have insisted on going to trial” if his trial counsel had properly advised him regarding credit time for which he qualified if convicted. Appellant’s App. Vol. I p. 50. … The post-conviction court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

Charles R. Whitlock v. Steel Dynamics, Inc.

35 N.E.3d 265 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

His lack of movement was on account of the head injury and the headaches and the pain After the accident I would say that for the first 2 to 3 weeks he was clearly disabled, then he started getting up and moving around and … When the moving party asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the nonmov-ant to establish an issue of fact

Porter v. Porter

526 N.E.2d 219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1988

The trial court's determination is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Chestnut, supra. … Reviewing the record, Norkus's testimony clearly was in rebuttal to Alerding's earlier testimony. Norkus was found qualified to testify as an expert in evaluating small businesses.

Hammock v. Red Gold, Inc.

784 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2003

He concluded that at that time, and even post-Webb, "Indiana tort law is presently a confused patchwork of obligation and immunity." Id. … This failure is clearly understandable in light of the fact that the Indiana appellate courts have also failed to do so. With Goldsberry the line of demarcation was drawn.

Blackman v. State

868 N.E.2d 579 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2007

The right of free speech protected in Section 9 is “expressly qualified by the phrase ‘but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.’ ” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 344 (Ind.2007). … Blackman has established that the State restricted her expressive activity.

Kopczynski v. Barger

870 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2007

To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach of duty proximately caused the injury. … Therefore, this does not qualify as a situation where the child was unable to appreciate the danger of the situation.

Brent A. Clemons v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2016

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … On the face of State’s Exhibit D, C.C. is clearly listed as the Petitioner, and Clemons is clearly prohibited from having contact with C.C. State’s Ex. D.

Small Business in Transportation Coalition v. Indiana Department of Revenue

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2020

state, within three years of the enactment of the UCR Act, submits to the Secretary a plan: (A) identifying the State agency that has or will have the legal authority, resources, and qualified … failure to state a claim; 4) a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties; and 5) a motion for summary judgment based on lack of notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act or sovereign immunity

Edward Gaeta v. The Huntington National Bank (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2019

As a general rule, a condition precedent must be fulfilled, or no liability can arise on the promise that the condition qualifies. L.H. Controls, Inc. v. … Gaeta’s failure to pay the loan secured by the mortgage was clearly established. And the failure to comply with the HUD regulations is an affirmative defense to foreclosure.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Mortell

667 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1996

The Examination Statute clearly includes Final Orders issued by the Commissioner following an investigatory hearing as “an order entered under section 11(a).” … Under the plain meaning of Ind.Code 27-l-3.1-ll(b), the Commissioner clearly had the authority to take the action that he took.

James E. Whitfield, M.D. and St. Joseph Primary Care, LLC v. Jerry Wren, Individually and As Personal Representative of The Wrongful Death Estate of Leslie Wren

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2014

extent that the parties’ arguments require us to interpret sections of the Medical Malpractice Act (the “Act”), we note that the first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly … to summary judgment as a matter of law unless the plaintiff can establish, by expert testimony, a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

City of Gary v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

967 N.E.2d 1053 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2012

The "and" between (A) and (B) clearly reflects that for such discharges for which a new permit limit would be required both (A) and (B) will apply. … relief from an administrative decision only if the agency action is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Matthew P. Apodaca v. ERA First Advantage Realty, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2020

We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard and thus defer to the trial court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility. Branham v. … “As a general rule, an express condition must be fulfilled or no liability can arise on the promise that the condition qualifies.” Id.

James Timothy Spears v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2018

55 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … Here, the length of the delay—almost sixteen years—is excessive and clearly qualifies as presumptively prejudicial. This factor weighs in favor of Spears. [9] We next consider the reason for the delay.

Clark v. Griffin

481 N.E.2d 170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1985

Issues Two and Three Now that we have established that Clark's endorsement was forged, we consider whether he can recover from either *173 MTB or Griffin for conversion. … However, the only suit clearly contemplated by this provision is one against the drawee bank. J. White and R. Summers Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code p. 586 (2d Ed.1980).

Nathan Anderson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2012

Indeed, the Court explained: As established in Miranda v. … The record clearly establishes that Smith relied upon two court orders when advising Anderson that he was required to submit a DNA sample.