Case law

5200 Keystone Ltd. Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc.

30 N.E.3d 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

KLR contends the trial court erred in sustaining the objection. [15] Indiana Evidence Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, and provides as follows: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge … contamination of the Site. [27] When reviewing a ruling on a T.R. 41(B) motion to dismiss, we apply the following standard of review: The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss made under Trial Rule 41(B) is reviewed under the clearly

Harold Bishop v. State of Indiana

40 N.E.3d 935 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2015

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … He argues that to qualify under the rule “the crimes must be so strikingly similar that it can be said with ‘reasonable certainty’ that the same person committed them” and that the circumstances of

Chubb Custom Insurance Company v. Standard Fusee Corporation

2 N.E.3d 752 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2014

Even if a tort plaintiff does not allege facts which clearly bring the claim within the policy coverage, the insurer still must defend if there is a potentiality that the claim could be covered by the policy. … As such, perchlorate qualifies as a pollutant under the contractual definition of the pollution exclusion clause.

State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC

977 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences and deductions drawn therefrom … “Indiana Evidence Rule 702 requires that an expert be qualified as such by his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Armstrong, 775 N.E.2d at 366.

Bill Musgrave v. Squaw Creek Coal Co. and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

The ALJ’s decision was clearly based upon two separate but individually sufficient grounds. … The definition of non-coal wastes clearly refers to wastes that were generated during surface mining activities.

Hayden Nix v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2023

“The petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” P-C.R. 1(5). … Accordingly, the post-conviction court did not clearly err in declining to set aside Nix’s guilty plea as involuntary.

Naked City, Inc. v. State

460 N.E.2d 151 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1984

In ruling against the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court commented: "A refusal to furnish medical care when it is clearly necessary ... could well result in the deprivation of life itself; . plaintiff suffered paralysis … Drost established at the sentencing hearing his apparent need for extraordinary medical care and the life-threatening consequences of its denial or delay.

City of Shelbyville v. MORTON, ETC.

138 Ind. App. 460 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1965

Appropos to the question and clearly applicable here are the observations *476 made by the court in The City of Columbus v. Strassner (1890), 124 Ind. 482 , 25 N. … We find no established error in the giving of said Instruction No. 2.

Bush v. Washington National Insurance

534 N.E.2d 1139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1989

The burden of establishing an absence of any genuine issue rests with the moving party, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the opposing party. Wingenroth v. … Using the broadest terms possible, it clearly states that anyone with other health or medical insurance is excluded from coverage. This exclusion is incorporated in the policy itself.

Bulent Colak v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2014

The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” … Colak asserts that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to qualify this testimony for the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule. See Ind.

Kruse, Kruse & Miklosko, Inc. v. Beedy

170 Ind. App. 373 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1976

Dempsey died, leaving the Union Commerce Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, as the duly qualified and acting Special Administrator-Executor of his estate. Prior to September 1, 1970, plaintiff Raymond H. … We turn, therefore, to the question of whether the finding that such words were intended as a reference to appellants was clearly erroneous.

Myers v. Greater Clark County School Corp.

464 N.E.2d 1323 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1984

surely should be compelled to hold that such action by the person interested would be a condition precedent to his being legally appointed as a teacher or to his becoming a permament teacher, even though such a result would qualify … The underlined portion of the above quote clearly supports a mandatory construction in the present case, for it uses the word "unless" and suggests that a mandatory interpretation would result if the burden of obtaining the

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.C. M.C. M.G. & L.C. (Minor Children) and T.G. (mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2012

The seven-week-old had not received her recommended immunizations and M.G. had not had her post-natal checkup. 3 Ind. … This Court will not set aside the trial court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship unless it is clearly erroneous. In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

Gilles v. State

531 N.E.2d 220 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1988

The State argues reference to the crowd as "fuckers," "whores," "queers," and "AIDS people," and saying the people were condemned to hell qualify as fighting words. We agree. … I must conclude that the evidence is plainly insufficient to establish the "personal insult" element of the crime as charged.

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2012

Hunter again admitted responsibility and conceded that he had intended to sell the alcohol, which he agreed would qualify as another violation of the law. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Allen v. State

813 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2004

The FBI investigators also discussed the possibility of immunity for Sharriee. … Thus, Lumpkin determined that at no time "did [he] find the driver of the subject vehicle to be clearly visible, discernable or recognizable." Appellant's App. p. 2922.

Indiana State Health Commissioner v. Caitlin Bernard, M.D.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2025

The dispute in this case centers on whether TPRs qualify as patient medical records, such that they are exempt from disclosure under the APRA through Section 5-14-3- 4(a)(9). … And we conclude that the trial court’s balancing of the harms is not clearly erroneous.

Leandrew Beasley v. State of Indiana

29 N.E.3d 802 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2015

The trial court’s determination will be reversed only where an abuse of discretion can be established. Id. … To prevail, the appellant must establish that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. Id.

Brien Clayton v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 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. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. McClendon v. State, 910 N.E.2d 826, 832 (Ind. Ct.

Finley v. Finley

422 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1981

The trial court here clearly considered factors in addition to the time involved. … Husband fails to note that this comment was made during an extensive voir dire process to qualify Bernth as an expert in the sale of insurance companies.