Case law

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.

John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney v. Anonymous M.D. 4, Anonymous M.D. 5, and Anonymous Hospital

991 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2013

Because there was no schedule established in this case, there is no evidence that Mooney failed to comply with a submission schedule. … But Young had not qualified her agreement in those terms, and the context of the correspondence among the parties shows otherwise.

Barbara Laskowski v. Amer Kazi, M.D.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

Generally, in order to establish a claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish by expert medical testimony (1) the applicable standard of care required by Indiana law, (2) how the defendant … There, we noted that, under Rule 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert by virtue of “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” and only one of these characteristics is necessary to qualify an individual

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.

Ellington Jeffrey, a minor by his mother and father, Victor Jeffrey and Lynell Jeffrey and Victor and Lynell Jeffrey, individually v. Stephen Robertson, Insurance Commissioner (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Mar 13 … The language of the release document signed by Victor and Lynell and Methodist clearly sets forth their intent that the settlement meet the statutory minimum and allow Victor and Lynell to proceed

Charles D. Burrage v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2018

FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 09 2018, 6:16 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … Burrage waived his right to further proceed with the jury trial and admitted to a prior qualifying felony required to prove he was a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm.

Samuel E. Pentecost Construction Co. v. O'Donnell

112 Ind. App. 47 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1942

It is clearly negligence on the part of any one, whether stranger, invitor, or employer, with knowledge of what is to be done, to maintain a place which is not reasonably safe, in view of the activities and operations therein … In considering the question as to whether or not the verdict of the jury is sustained by sufficient evidence, we are guided by the' established rule that only the evidence favorable to appellee will be considered.

Watson v. Thibodeau

559 N.E.2d 1205 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1990

The power of a court to issue a mandatory injunction as a means of enforcing restrictive covenants is well established. Highland v. Williams (1975), 166 Ind.App. 492 , 336 N.E.2d 846, 847 . … Even though the Watsons have prosecuted their appeal pro se, that is, on their own without being represented by counsel, they must comply with all the rules of appellate procedure just the same as a qualified attorney is

Young v. General Acceptance Corp.

738 N.E.2d 1079 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2000

The Stockholders’ Agreement was entered into for the purpose of establishing the composition of GAC’s Board of Directors, limiting the manner by which the Algood defendants’ stock could be transferred, and establishing the … Gabhart, 267 Ind. 370 , 370 N.E.2d 345 (1977), to establish the exclusive remedy only for mergers with a “valid purpose.”

Anthony A. Parish v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 09 2020, 8:47 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Appellate assistance will be considered deficient, however, if the omitted issue was clearly stronger than the issues presented. Bieghler v.

Hundt v. LaCrosse Grain Co., Inc.

425 N.E.2d 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1981

the same reason, we similarly cannot agree with Lacrosse’s contention that the regulations in question should have been listed as exhibits in the trial court’s pre-trial order, and that Goodwin should have been properly qualified … The instant instruction is clearly nonmandatory since it does not “attempt to set forth specific facts such that the jury is required to reach a certain result upon a finding of those facts,” Kroger v.

Daniel P. Wahl v. State of Indiana

36 N.E.3d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

We will first establish whether Wahl has met his initial two-part inquiry of prejudice. A. … A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before’ it” or if it “misinterprets or misapplies the law.”"

City of Gary v. Enterprise Trucking & Waste Hauling

846 N.E.2d 234 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2006

Plaintiff's contract to perform C & D hauling and disposal services was the result of a public bid process which invited other qualified companies to bid on the C & D work, as well as, the hauling and disposal of concrete … Normally, when the appellee does not file a brief, we apply a less stringent standard of review and may reverse the trial court when the appellant establishes prima facie error. Id.

Kenneth M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

He argues that State’s Exhibit 1 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 44A03-1603-CR-503 | February 14, 2017 Page 7 of 30  was hearsay, and therefore should not have qualified for admission under … Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 779 (Ind. 2015), a Fourth Amendment case, our supreme court very broadly held that probationers “who have consented or been clearly informed that the conditions of their probation

In Re Estate of Meyer

747 N.E.2d 1159 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2001

Lu-chins qualified as an expert witness and stated an admissible expert opinion under Evidence Rule 702 based on his review of Meyer's medical records and a personal examination of Meyer. R. at 2456. … The trial court's decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id. at 999-1000 . We agree with the trial court that the affidavit was admissible under Rule 702. See generally Rogers ex rel.

Jackson v. Luellen Farms, Inc.

877 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2007

Jackson did not qualify his signature as President of Hartford Packing Company, Inc. [[Image here]] 31. … Although Jackson clearly had some motive to sign the Note, the Note was not supported by consideration. See Brown, 114 Ind.App. at 408 , 52 N.E.2d at 641 .

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electricity Company

70 N.E.3d 429 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2017

Intervenors have failed to establish that the IURC abused the broad discretion granted it. … While it sets out the requirements of such a petition, 170 I.A.C. 1- 1.1-22 does not establish a standard of review.

Nirmal Joshi, M.D. v. Apollo Medical Group, LLC Nirmal Joshi, M.D. v. Ayman Elfar, M.D. and Candido Guiao, M.D. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2017

engaging in any other business or venture, whether or not competitive, 1 The Operating Agreement distinguishes between “Managers” and “Members,” though each of the three doctors in this case qualify … Joshi first argues that the trial court erred by finding that Apollo established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.

City of Hammond v. Board of Zoning Appeals

152 Ind. App. 480 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1972

But when the Legislature has not made that authorization, courts should not be asked to do so by changing the long established and generally understood meaning of ‘aggrieved’ in order to attain a result the Legislature has … We hold that the City’s complaint did not demonstrate a'personal or pecuniary interest which would qualify it as an “aggrieved” party within the meaning of the statute. *490 *489 V.

The City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, the Mayor of the City of Lawrenceburg in his official capacity v. Franklin County, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2019

The parties disagree as to whether Lawrenceburg’s argument that the Agreement is void by statute qualifies as the affirmative defense of illegality. … [31] Second, not only can this result not be what the legislature intended, but it is clearly not what Lawrenceburg intended, either.