Case law

Flynn v. Klineman

75 Ind. Dec. 657 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 1980

This is accomplished by insuring that both parties understand that the issuer is relying on the buyer’s investment intent in order to qualify for the exemption. … The relevant statute, IC 23-2-l-l(b)(10), clearly requires a written representation of the purchaser’s investment intent.

Daveon L. Hendricks v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2021

Brionna’s testimony about Balfour’s statement, which was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, qualifies as hearsay. … None of these statutes clearly permit multiple punishments.

Uthman Cavallo, M.D. v. Allied Physicians of Michiana, LLC

42 N.E.3d 995 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

The nature of the issues presented and the remedies sought determines whether an action qualifies as “legal.” J.R. Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 563 F.3d 1102, 1115 (10th Cir. 2009). … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Kimbrough v. State

911 N.E.2d 621 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2009

The trial court determined that juror Karner "clearly and unequivocally" indicated that he was too distracted to pay attention to the proceedings. Id. at 235-36. … Kimbrough argues that the trial court erroneously determined that the statements qualified under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

Sean M. Keith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2018

under our fundamental-error analysis, the defendant must show that, “under the circumstances, the trial judge erred in not sua sponte raising the issue because [the] alleged errors (a) constitute clearly … Keith has failed to establish fundamental error. II.

Gabriel Kowalskey v. State of Indiana

42 N.E.3d 97 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2015

[7] After questioning Kowalskey about his finances and finding that he qualified for a court-appointed lawyer, the court appointed Eric Oliver as his counsel in Cause Nos. 39 and 142. … The Court also noted that, while there is evidence that the defendant chose to work and sleep rather than take the time to hire an attorney, his conduct did not result in gross delays or clearly appear

Citizens' Street Railroad Co. of Indianapolis v. Stoddard

10 Ind. App. 278 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 1894

In this case, we are of the opinion that the construct *291 ive admission of the truth of the facts established by appellee’s evidence, and the implied waiver of the objections and exceptions previously taken and reserved … The transaction can not be varied, qualified or explained by a declaration in the nature of the narrative of a past occurrence. Parker v. State, 136 Ind. 284 .

McGrew v. State

673 N.E.2d 787 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1996

The Court held that the test established in Frye v. … In so holding, we stress that we are not establishing a per se rule of inadmissibility for microscopic hair analysis.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.K. & D.K. (Minor Children), and Ke.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

We will reverse the trial court’s judgment as being clearly erroneous “if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.” … | August 11, 2016 Page 13 of 23 [24] In this case, as the trial court found, the Children were removed from Mother’s care “due to the [C]hildren’s poor hygiene and out of control behaviors, lack of immunizations

Butler v. State

951 N.E.2d 255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2011

An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Again, an examination of the exchange set forth above fails to establish that Butler was so informed.

Dowell v. State

865 N.E.2d 1059 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2007

R.B. clearly indicated no. They spent nearly two and a half hours at the pub. Dowell drank several beverages while R.B. had three during that time, two of which Dowell helped finish. … Dowell objected to the question and the State responded that the Information was gained during the course of a medical examination, and, thus, qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(

Lynn A. Johnson v. Michele Bradberry, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony O. Johnson, (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

[7] Clearly, Lynn was dilatory, rather than diligent, in procuring counsel to represent her at the hearing. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-GU-26 | December 17, 2020 Page 10 of 23  which we may not set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Marriage of Edwards v. Edwards

709 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

The rule clearly provides that the only consequence of not filing a notice of appeal is that other matters may not be filed until the notice of appeal has been filed. … Thus, this Court has required that a written memorial must form the basis for establishing the error or omission to be corrected by the nunc pro tunc order.

Shortridge v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

498 N.E.2d 82 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1986

Such implied acceptance of a maternity leave was properly established by this employer on February 28, 1977. … The starting point is usually the traditional doctrine as applied to judgments of courts; that doctrine should be qualified or relaxed to whatever extent is desirable for making it a proper and useful tool for administrative

Klagiss v. State

585 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1992

After being qualified as an expert, Dr. Kahairi testified that osteoporosis renders bones susceptible to fracture with little trauma. … We need not address these inconsistencies individually, because none even arguably tends to establish that Green perjured himself.

Demetriese Gunn v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

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, or the law of the case. … The instructions clearly tell the jury that they must find all five elements, including bodily injury, in order to convict Gunn.

McGlone v. Hauger

56 Ind. App. 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1914

Judge Cooley, in his Elements of Torts said: “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone. * * * But the attempt to commit a battery * * * involves usually an insult, a putting … rectly in writing the verdict to which they had, by a dne and regular • course of proceeding, honestly and fairly arrived. * * * No considerations of public policy require that the uncontradicted testimony of jurors to establish

Wooten v. State

418 N.E.2d 538 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

Furthermore, Phillips saw Wooten clearly at the scene of the offense for approximately four minutes. Phillips was also able to identify Wooten from a photographic display, as well, as at trial. … Ind.Code 33-4-5-7 establishes as a qualification that a juror, either grand or petit, must be a resident voter of the county and a freeholder or householder.

Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Ward

449 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1983

The instant case is a disciplinary action, not a suit to establish liability. … We perceive IC 25-22.5-6-2(6) as clearly falling within the medical licensing act and as defining a specific kind of "unprofessional" conduct. 11 .

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Recticel Foam Corp.

716 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1999

Recticel initiated this action against certain insurers, including Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”), to establish insurance coverage for its alleged environmental contamination. … However, a non-waiver agreement does not immunize an insurer from responsibility for all its actions. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Fox, 361 F.2d 1, 7 (10th Cir.1966).