Case law

Henley v. State

855 N.E.2d 1018 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2006

To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must establish the two components set forth in Strickland v. … This issue was also clearly stronger than the other issues in the appellate brief.

Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Campos

582 N.E.2d 865 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1991

The well-established purpose of this statute ‘... is to afford the same protection to a person injured by the uninsured motorist as he would have enjoyed if the offending motorist had himself carried liability insurance.’ … forth in the emphasized portions of the applicable statute, Indiana’s uninsured motorist statute requires that all carriers such as Defendant herein provide uninsured motorist coverage to all persons who would otherwise qualify

Neudecker v. Neudecker

566 N.E.2d 557 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1991

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS — Rolland says the evidence was insufficient to establish that his failure to pay his child support obligation was willful, and therefore the evidence was insufficient to establish he was in contempt … App., 441 N.E.2d 711 (immunity does not exist as to non-custodial parent).

In re the Paternity of E.G.C., Minor Child, Lisa Jacobs (Click) v. Ryan Delagrange (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2020

On January 27, 2016, the trial court issued an order establishing paternity. In February 2016, Father filed a petition to establish parenting time. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.

Indianapolis Concrete, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development

900 N.E.2d 48 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2009

An employer's experience account is charged when a qualifying employee receives unemployment benefits based upon employment with that employer. Ashlin, 637 N.E.2d at 171 . … The word "distinct" is defined as "different, separate, plain, well-defined, or clearly perceived." Ashlin, 637 N.E.2d at 167 .

Bennett v. Indiana Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

688 N.E.2d 171 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1997

Such an amendment raises a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intention more clearly. … The burden is on the Association to establish the existence of these three elements. Id.

Blanchard v. State

802 N.E.2d 14 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2004

Expert testimony clearly established that a erying infant inhales through his mouth. Thus, by covering Willon's mouth with a twice-folded washcloth, Blanchard stifled his airway and prevented him from breathing. … The record clearly establishes that Blanchard's trial counsel had been aware of the charge and was fully prepared for trial. The only mishap appeared to. be the official filing of the charge with the trial court.

Marriage of Scoleri v. Scoleri

766 N.E.2d 1211 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2002

If as [Father] argues, he was not qualified for equivalent employment as a supervisor or journeymen printer, he could just as easily have been retrained for something with greater earning potential, Clearly, [Father] chose … The evidence establishes that Father works two jobs as a paramedic to maintain his current income level.

S.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development

941 N.E.2d 550 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2011

Policy 2008-28 also appears to be a generally applicable statement of "procedure, or practice requirements of an agency" intended to have the effect of law, so as to qualify as a "rule" under the Administrative Rules and … As ex- - plained above in Part II, these facts taken as true do not establish a denial of S.S.'s reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing.

Ebert v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company

158 Ind. App. 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1973

Any limited or qualified interest or any expectancy of advantage is sufficient. Parks v. Federal Crops Insurance Corporation (7th Cir. 1969), 416 F. 2d 833 ; 4 APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE § 2123 (1969) ; 43 Am. … Any finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. V.

Fowler v. Brewer

773 N.E.2d 858 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2002

Clearly, the deadline to file a tort claim notice came and went before Brewer filed his original answer on April 5, 2000. … Clearly, the Fowlers’ letter to Cincinnati Insurance Company fails to comply with the form, content, and timing requirements of the notice statute. McConnell, 698 N.E.2d at 868 .

Hornbostel v. State

757 N.E.2d 170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2001

Those aggravating cireumstances are all established by the evidence. … A trial court abuses its discretion when its evidentiary ruling is clearly against the logic, facts and cireum-stances presented. Id. A.

Wright v. Elston

701 N.E.2d 1227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1998

A litigant who chooses to proceed pro se will be held to the same established rules of procedure as trained legal counsel. Diaz v. Carpenter, 650 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). … This statute extends immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act to attorneys employed by a governmental entity, whether as an employee or as an independent contractor.

Luhnow v. Horn

760 N.E.2d 621 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2001

In this case, the Luhnows fail to meet two of the three criteria establishing third-party beneficiary status. … The Drainage Board is not immune from all liability under the common-enemy doctrine merely because we hold that it is a landowner with respect to its easement.

Soloman v. Blue Chip Casino, Inc.

772 N.E.2d 515 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2002

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under a clearly erroneous standard if the trial court has issued findings of fact and conclusions of law after an evidentiary hearing. Id. … The Plaintiffs cite to the deposition of the Blue Chip casino boat's captain to establish the specific manner in which the Coast Guard exercises authority over the boat.

Foltz v. Evans

113 Ind. App. 596 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1943

This conditional or qualified acceptance amounted to a rejection of appellee’s offer as made, Kritz v. Moon (1928), 88 Ind. App. 5 , 163 N. … The case reviews several earlier cases on the subj'ect to the effect that parol proof of the connection of papers is not admissible to establish a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing, but that the

Fultz v. State

849 N.E.2d 616 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 2006

On the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes Farrell was dead when the fire started. Moreover, while the autopsy did not reveal evidence of strangulation, Dr. … Steve testified for the State, under a grant of use immunity, and provided a similar account of the events following Farrell's death.

Eberhart v. Indiana Waste Systems, Inc.

452 N.E.2d 455 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1983

Joseph County since 1957, the Council, Commissioners and ABZA all have clearly differentiated powers and duties. As the executive power in the county, the Commissioners approve or veto ordinances passed by the Council. … No sanitary landfill, or solid or liquid waste disposal facility, shall be approved as a conditional use which does not also qualify as an urban drain as herein defined. 5.

Merica v. Burget

36 Ind. App. 453 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1905

The facts as found by the trial court, relative to the acts and doings of the appellant Merica, clearly bring him within the business of banking, as defined in the case *461 of First Nat. Bank v. … The business of the bank thus established was more or less the fruit of the good-will they had established for the institution and their influence with the ¡aeople of that vicinity with whom they, as bankers, had dealt.

Harry F. Bolton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 16 2015, 7:30 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata … Although Bolton was clearly on probation, he was not “confined on home detention” at Club Soda.