Case law

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Gregg

554 N.E.2d 1145 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 1990

We held that an expert qualified in the subject matter generally need have no special training or expertise in reading and writing warnings. … Furthermore, the motion to strike does not clearly indicate the evidence to have been improperly admitted. Public Serv. Co. of Ind., Inc. v. Levenstein Bros. (1965), 246 Ind. 520, 528 , 207 N.E.2d 202 .

Alexandro Prado v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2012

that the interpreter was qualified. … An allegation that a trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported

Timothy J. Brown v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2020

Code ch. 4-15-10. 3 This section states: “An unclassified employee must establish that the commission has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the employee’s wrongful discharge claim by establishing that … It is said the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again that clearly does not work.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Purdue National Bank

74 Ind. Dec. 522 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1980

To receive the benefit of these warranties, then, the drawer of a check must qualify as an ‘other payor who . . . pays.’ … Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record establishing any course of dealing or other basis for reliance by the drawer bank.

Nyers v. Gruber

150 Ind. App. 117 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1971

These cases have not been questioned, qualified or overruled, and are binding on the Court in this case. … E. 2d 131 (1955). *126 The basis of that decision is clearly stated by the Court as follows (pp 132-3 of 129 N.

Forrey, Jr., Receiver v. Turpin, Exrx.

106 Ind. App. 681 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1939

The words personal representative as used in the above statute include a duly qualified general administrator or executor. They may also be appointed for the specific purpose of prosecuting such an action. … Clearly under the authorities and the said allegations, all of such questions were questions of fact for the determination of the jury under the evidence.

Travon D. Blow v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 18 2019, 10:59 am court except for the purpose of establishing … As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained: Although a witness may not be qualified to offer expert testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, the witness may be qualified

Faris v. AC AND S, INC.

842 N.E.2d 870 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2006

When the pleadings present no material issues of fact and the facts shown by the pleadings clearly entitle a party to judgment, the entry of judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Id. … The trial court denied the request, and this court reversed, finding that the plaintiff seeking the amendment was qualified to maintain the action as the child's mother. Id. at 1286 .

Citizens Financial Services, FSB v. Innsbrook Country Club, Inc.

833 N.E.2d 1045 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2005

Relevant Facts Established by the Evidence Adduced at the August 13, 2004 Hearing on CFS' Verified Petition to Appoint a Receiver with Notice. 1. Mr. … Thus, the assumption of a mortgage qualifies as a credit agreement.

Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, Inc., and SM Eastland Mall, LLC (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2020

It is the nature of the claim, not its merit, that establishes an insurer’s duty to defend. … “In assessing what qualifies as a reasonable fee, trial courts have broad discretion in determining a fee award and may consider several factors.” Rainbow Realty Grp., Inc. v.

In re the Marriage of: Thomas E. Thompson v. Donna B. Thompson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 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, … Among other assets, Husband had two pensions which Wife requested be split by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”).

In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hospital, Inc.

827 N.E.2d 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2005

The Division of Mental Health and Addictions establishes exclusive geographic territories to be served by CMHCs. 440 IAC 41-3-1. … But the rules also qualify CMHCs' duties, stating that the services must be provided "within the limits of the capacity of the center." Id. at (d).

Amy (Winton) Otis v. Marketing Three LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 2013

Otis pointed out several contradictions in Marketing Three’s filings, such as its assertions that CashCall was the original creditor while the Note clearly identifies the First Bank of Delaware as the first holder of the … We may reverse the trial court if Otis is able to establish prima facie error, which is error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it. Id.

Crum v. AVCO Financial Services of Indianapolis, Inc.

552 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1990

The evidence established that a reasonable hourly fee for the Vigo/Fountain County area would be $75 per hour. … AVCO never recorded a deed transferring title to the Crums, so AVCO did not qualify for the insurance referred to in the contract. Record at 396.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Scott Sporner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2026

Railroad asserted that Gonzalez “improperly served as the mouthpiece for the doctors’ unadmitted medical opinions,” which “she (as a vocational rehabilitation specialist) was not qualified to evaluate.” … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or it misinterpreted the law. Auto. Fin. Corp. v.

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC

977 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Thus, we conclude that the establishment of the UMAs is unavoidable. … The first step in any statutory interpretation is determining if the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.

Caudill v. State

613 N.E.2d 433 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 1993

Taken together, these facts established a sufficient basis under 1C. 34-4-80.1-l(a)(l)(A)(vi) to justify the forfeiture of Caudill's Bronco. … On the contrary, I.C. 84-4-80.1-l(c) clearly states such money can also be presumed to be or have been used to violate a criminal statute-for example, to purchase drugs for personal consumption.

John M. Mayer, Jr., as Special Administrator of the Estate of Paige R. Winn v. Michael. W. Davis

991 N.E.2d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2013

In the instant matter, the record clearly demonstrates that Davis failed to either request that the trial court open an estate for Winn or file a claim against the Estate within the permissible timeframe set forth in Indiana … Unlike in Pistalo, the instant appeal stems from a suit against the deceased tortfeasor’s estate seeking to establish liability on behalf of the deceased tortfeasor.

IND ED. EMP. REL. BD. v. Bd. of Sch. Trust.

368 N.E.2d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1977

Section 5 of the Act clearly contemplates that the discussion of the factors enumerated therein are to be on behalf of all members of the school employees' bargaining unit. … Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; or 3. In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or short of statutory right; or 4.

Hutchens v. Covert

39 Ind. App. 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1906

not whether the soldier was in line of duty at the time he received his injury, in the sense that he was not disobeying any military law, rule, or regulation, or guilty of any culpable negligence, but rather what is the qualify … We are clearly of the opinion that, under the facts pleaded, appellant has not brought herself within the statute, and that she has no right of recovery. Judgment affirmed.