Case law

Arlton v. Schraut

936 N.E.2d 831 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2010

The Medical Care Providers claim that the trial court properly refused to admit the enlarged photos, arguing that Arlton failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the *837 images. … Specifically, they claim that Arl-ton was not qualified as an expert witness and therefore did not possess the knowledge and skill necessary to interpret the angiogram exhibits and "create" the images.

P.T. Barnum's Nightclub v. Duhamell

766 N.E.2d 729 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2002

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 The Club is an establishment which provides adult entertainment, more particularly exotic dancing, to its customers. … Former employees such as Lobosco are clearly not "parties" to the litigation. The Comment then clarifies who qualifies as a "party" in the case of a corporate party.

Leibowitz v. Moore

436 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1982

"(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. … This is because DR 2-106 was designed to establish the minimal conduct allowed an attorney regarding the legal fees that he charges his client.

In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.H. and A.H., Minor Children, K.H., Mother, and R.H., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2018

We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. … App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

Gilliam v. State

650 N.E.2d 45 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1995

Gilliam clearly initiated the communication and his statements were preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to have counsel present. … Gilliam has failed to establish that, but for his counsel's alleged errors, the result of his trial would have been different. Gilliam has not met his burden to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Vincent Barrett and Sarah Barrett v. City of Logansport, Indiana Michael Nicoll, in his capacity as Sexton of Mount Hope Cemetery and James McDonald

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2012

Although a witness may not be qualified to offer expert testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, the witness may still be qualified as a “skilled witness” (sometimes referred to as a “skilled lay observer”). Ind. … Likewise, there were no guidelines as to who was qualified to place dirt on graves. Id. at 1211-12.

Monroe Financial Corp. v. DiSilvestro

529 N.E.2d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1988

A judgment is clearly erroneous if not supported by the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are clearly erroneous if unsupported by the findings of fact. Lafayette Realty Corp. v. Vonnegut's, Inc. (1984) 1st Dist. … If the facts of this case do not show a detrimental change of position, I am at a loss to know what facts would so qualify.

Bray v. Miles

23 Ind. App. 432 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1899

The court in construing said will and the above sections of the Massachusetts statutes says: “The design of the legislature in this statute clearly was to qualify and limit the right of an adopted child under the previous … These last general words, we think, are to be qualified in like manner as the others remarked upon, by restriction to the parties to the adoption proceeding and the persons named in the statute.

James David Finney v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2014

A confession is inadmissible if obtained by promises of mitigation or immunity. Id. … Here, Finney cites no specific promises of mitigation or immunity, and we find none.

Family & Social Services Administration v. Community Care Centers, Inc.

641 N.E.2d 1012 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1994

A facility serving three or more developmentally disabled individuals must provide Rule 7 treatment, which includes retaining a qualified mental retardation professional, developing and implementing an habilitation program … Given the evidence, the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and support the judgment. C.

In Re The Matter of: D.H. and D.H., Children in Need of Services D.H. (Father) v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2013

The children had been accepted into the clinic because they qualified as high-risk patients due to their “chaotic living environment.” Id. at 24. … Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id.

Andrew C. Kesling, individually and as Trustee of the Andrew C. Kesling Trust v. Peter C. Kesling

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2012

We will conclude a judgment is clearly erroneous if no evidence supports the findings, the findings fail to support the judgment, or if the trial court applies the incorrect legal standard. … The court held that although “the ‘grantor trust rules’ of section 671 et seq.” are concerned “with actual command over the property taxed,” “[s]ubchapter S was enacted as a remedial measure to relieve qualifying small

City of Evansville and Evansville Water and Sewer Utility v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2012

“Opinions expressing a mere possibility with regard to a hypothetical situation are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. … If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. We addressed a similar argument in Newnam.

Roger A. Carter v. Jennifer Carter (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2019

James Houlihan, a qualified expert, conducted a business valuation of DBConnect and testified at trial. … TT, which he alleges “clearly articulates the closing costs of the property of $33,422,” Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 7.

EngineAir, Inc. and JMA Rail Products, Inc. v. Centra Credit Union

107 N.E.3d 1061 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2018

Indiana has not established a duty of care between a mere collecting bank and the customer of a payor bank; 2. … App. 2017) (“[T]he BSA provides financial institutions . . . immunity under its safe harbor provision from lawsuits based on the financial institutions’ report or disclosure of suspicious activity. 31 U.S.C

Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. State Ex Rel. Summers

82 Ind. App. 377 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1925

created for purposes of government, and authorized to exercise to a limited extent a portion of the' power of the state government, have always been held to act strictly within the powers granted by the legislative act establishing … The commissioners are authorized and required to qualify and induct into office the several officers of the county, and to take and approve their official bonds, which they shall cause to be registered. * * * The sole power

Pohlmeyer v. Second Nat. Bank of Richmond

118 Ind. App. 651 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1948

The appellee, Second National Bank of Richmond, was nominated as executor of the will and, under appointment of the Wayne Circuit Court, qualified as such on August 25, 1930, and forthwith entered upon the discharge of its … When exceptions are filed to an executor’s or administrator’s final report it has long been the established practice in this state to regard the report as constituting the complaint and the exceptions thereto as the answer

Clemons v. State

162 Ind. App. 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1974

We think a statement made by the boy shortly after he was taken into custody is relevant, not to establish whether or not he committed the acts alleged, though certainly it may have a tendency to do so, but to aid those qualified … State, supra, are observed, the juvenile’s confession is clearly inadmissible at the delinquency hearing.

Justin Scruggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2020

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 29 2020, 10:44 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Scruggs does not qualify as mentally retarded, which is indicated by an IQ of 70 or less. Scruggs graduated from high school in South Dakota.

Jonathan McPherson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2018

The petitioner must establish deficient performance by appellate counsel resulting in prejudice. Id. … [25] The post-conviction court did not clearly err in rejecting McPherson’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.