Case law

Lisa Martin v. American Senior Communities, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2012

Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 803(2), an exited utterance qualifies as an exception to hearsay. … Given the undisputed existence of ASC’s termination policy, and the parties’ disagreement over the events alleged by ASC to fall within the terms of that policy, a genuine issue of material fact clearly remains.

Constantinos P. Angelopoulos v. Theodore P. Angelopoulos, Neptunia Incorporated, Transmar Corporation, Didiac Establishment, Beta Steel Corporation, and Top Gun Investment Corporation, II.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2013

The Greek courts clearly rejected Constantinos’s claim on its merits. Pursuant to the doctrines of both comity and res judicata, Constantinos cannot now relitigate this issue in Indiana courts. … claims that the deposition materials should have remained confidential because the trial court had already approved of the agreed-to protective order, which he 19 claims would qualify

Michael A. Ferrill v. Susan E. Ferrill

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2020

In exchange for leaving active duty before qualifying for pension, Michael was to receive Voluntary Separation Incentive (“VSI”) payments in an amount based on his pay grade when separating from the military … The Court will ask the parties to conduct the necessary calculations to establish the payments going forward that Michael will pay to Susan and submit an agreed order accordingly.

Stevonta D. Hill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2018

[7] On August 9, 2016, Hill testified before a grand jury under a grant of use immunity. … [20] Moreover, the State emphasizes the “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” language of section (e) of the statute while ignoring section (d), which clearly requires a hearing on an enhancement after “

Michael Laroy McCullough, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2019

Here, evidence was presented to establish that McCullough violated four conditions of probation. … Stating that McCullough “would not qualify for Jasper County Community Corrections,” the trial court ordered McCullough to serve the “balance of [his] suspended sentence.” Id. at 36-37.

Poyser v. Peerless

775 N.E.2d 1101 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2002

To establish defamation, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a communication with defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. Ratcliff v. … Common Interest Privilege Even if one assumed that the statements were defamatory, the statements were protected by a qualified privilege of common interest.

Mahin v. Soshnick, Extr., Etc.

128 Ind. App. 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1958

Harold Soshnick, was appointed executor thereunder and duly qualified. The decedent left surviving her the appellant, Glenn R. Mahin, a son, and the appellee, Dorothy F. … It was admitted by the appellee, and established by the judgment from which this appeal is taken, that none of the appellants were personally summoned to attend such hearing.

Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana

980 N.E.2d 887 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2012

As established in Miranda v. … Detective Lauer asserted, repeatedly and falsely, that his investigation clearly established that Malloch intentionally touched C.P. However, his deception does not necessarily render the confession involuntary.

Town of Pittsboro Advisory Plan Commission and Town of Pittsboro Town Council v. Art Park, LLC

26 N.E.3d 110 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2015

These statutes “establish[] the exclusive means for judicial review of zoning decisions[.]” I.C. § 36-7-4-1601(a). … “The basis of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is the existence of a justiciable controversy or question, which is clearly defined and affects the legal right, the legal status, or the legal

Schmoll v. Schenck

40 Ind. App. 581 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1907

It has been construed to mean an occupant of landj a resident; a permanent resident; one having a domicil; a citizen;. a qualified voter; a settler. … “Domicil, the place where a person lives, •or has his home; that is, where one has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.

Donald Snover v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

[10] Judge Kirsch concurred in result and concluded that Hammond’s statements to police qualified as statements against penal interest. Id. at 1052. … In this review, we accept findings of fact unless Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1505-PC-320 | October 30, 2015 Page 12 of 22  clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions

In Re: The Marriage of Mikiko Hige v. Christopher L. Glick

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2014

Hige has not established that the finding is clearly erroneous. Hige also argues that the finding regarding the $11,800 student loan is not supported by the record, and Glick agrees. … Without more, Hige has not established Glick improperly failed to disclose assets.

Keilman, Tr. v. City of Hammond

124 Ind. App. 392 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1953

We were merely adhering to the long and well-established elementary principles referred to in the cited cases and the authorities cited therein. … In our opinion they have established a rule of property which we neither have the authority nor inclination to change.

Christian Q. White v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2026

In short, White has failed to establish that his alleged care for Diane was significant or clearly supported by the record. … Murder qualifies as an enumerated offense under I.C. § 35-50-2-11(b)(1) because it is “a felony . . . that resulted in death or serious bodily injury.”

Workman v. Workman

113 Ind. App. 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1943

It is clearly outside the issues, and is an attempt to impeach on collateral matter not material to issues in this cause. “Objection overruled. … In the contest of a will on the ground of undue influence, the evidence required to establish the undue influence need not be of that direct, affirmative and positive character which is required to establish a tangible physical

J.G. v. H.H., by next friends, J.S. and G.H. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2018

[order] must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. … Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.

In Re ET

787 N.E.2d 483 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 2003

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. II. … conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony or affidavit of the custodian or other qualified

Gunther Kranz and Carol Kranz v. Meyers Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., Christopher Bartoszek, and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2012

We do not reverse the agency‟s decision unless the 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 … (3) Establish a process under IC 4-21.5 for the mediation of disputes among persons with competing interests or between a person and the [DNR].

Prewitt v. State

819 N.E.2d 393 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2004

In interpreting the above rule, this court recently reaffirmed the notion that an expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. Messer v. … Thus, the prejudicial impact clearly outweighs any probative value of the evidence. See Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127, 134 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); trans. denied.

Hopper v. Carey

716 N.E.2d 566 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1999

In Mays , the court upheld a jury instruction that failure to use a seatbelt established the defense of contributory negligence. … Allowing evidence of Hopper’s failure to wear a seatbelt to establish contributory negligence would do just that. 3.