Case law

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Estate of Wagers

833 N.E.2d 93 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2005

Further, the trial court's decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. In re Remonstrance, 769 N.E.2d at 631 . … However, after her exposure, she had brain, peripheral nerve, and immune function deficits consistent with toxic exposure to the herbicide.

Dick Sears v. Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency

117 N.E.3d 588 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2018

a claimant for grain delivered before the bar date as established in Ind. … In its Final Order, the Ultimate Authority observed: Clearly, law makers view [the Claimant Statute] as establishing a twelve month time bar as argued by IGBWLA in this case and they chose to extend that time frame during

Pendleton v. McCarty

747 N.E.2d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2001

The phrase clearly refers to practices involving untruthfulness or deception. … This is clearly not the case.

Leslee Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, R. Scott Waddell, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Drake Ex Rel. Drake v. Mitchell Community Schools

628 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1994

Our supreme court held: The school personnel here clearly exercised ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the children under their authority. … Accordingly, although the School is immune under I.C. 34-4-16.5-38(11) for making an inadequate or negligent inspection of the grain elevator, the blanket immunity provided for inspections under this section cannot be stretched

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Alder

689 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1997

This evidence clearly indicates that Jackson suffered a pecuniary loss. … We question the ICRC’s continued expenditure of public funds to continually relitigate an established rule of law.

Miller v. Miller

55 Ind. App. 644 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1914

There is no qualifying term such as “disinterested” or “impartial.” … It is sufficient if the evidence as a whole clearly establishes that such witnesses are in fact resident freeholders and householders of the State, and establishes also “to the satisfaction of the court trying the cause”

Thomas v. State

965 N.E.2d 70 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2012

Here, when Orue testified, her immunity agreement with the State was disclosed to the jury. … When asked if she had any reason to think she would receive anything other than immunity in exchange for testifying, she replied that she did not.

Trustcorp Mortgage Co. v. Metro Mortgage Co.

867 N.E.2d 203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2007

To abide by the policies and procedures established by the PURCHASER for loans originated under this Agreement; 4. … or defects in an appraisal submitted to support a mortgage loan and/or awareness or knowledge of the failure of the mortgage loan to qualify under Fannie Mae guidelines in order for Trustcorp to establish that Metro breached

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Golden Rule Insurance Co.

639 N.E.2d 339 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1994

A "qualified long term care policy" is defined as a "policy that meets the requirements established by the department of insurance under IC 27-8-12-7.1." 1.0. 12-10-9-8(b). … Thus, not only must the policy meet the definition of a long term care policy contained in 1.C. 27-8-12-5, it must meet any additional requirements established by the Department before the policy may be qualified under the

Kindred v. State

514 N.E.2d 314 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1987

Furthermore, Kindred clearly acquiesced in any irregularity when he submitted to the jurisdiction of the second special judge by obtaining rulings on his motions. … There clearly was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Kindred unreasonably delayed filing for post-conviction relief under cireumstances permitting diligence.

Ellenwine v. Fairley

818 N.E.2d 961 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

When the moving party asserts the statute *964 of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of … As the wife of Lawrence, she clearly was a 'relative.'

Palin v. Indiana State Personnel Department

698 N.E.2d 347 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1998

In this statement, Governor Bayh expressed the need to give IDEM “the ability to attract and retain a highly qualified professional and technical staff.” Record at 120. … Governor Bayh expressed the need to recruit and retain highly qualified professional and technical employees.

In Re: The Paternity of K.H., Rebekah Harris (Mother) v. Jon Cochran (Father)

116 N.E.3d 504 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2018

The trial court qualified Walker as an expert and admitted the psychological examination over Mother’s objection that Walker was not qualified to administer the MMPI. … We shall not set aside the findings or a judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Id.

Toni Ball v. Clifton Jones

52 N.E.3d 813 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

Ball has not designated any evidence establishing that Detective Jones acted on his own initiative or with no intention to perform the service for which he was employed. … Detective Jones’ actions are clearly within the scope of his employment as an IMPD officer and therefore are cloaked with immunity under ITCA.

KS&E Sports and Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels

66 N.E.3d 940 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

Clearly, as a member of the general public, Runnels was among the persons intended to be protected by these statutes. … This is a quintessential immunity provision.

Ashley T. Tucker v. Michelle R. Harrison, M.D.

973 N.E.2d 46 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2012

He may be qualified to offer a mathematical opinion, but he was not shown to be qualified to offer a medical opinion as to causation. Tucker is required to show that Dr. … The trial court did not clearly err in excluding the proffered bias testimony. III.

Tesfamariam v. Woldenhaimanot

956 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2011

that her interpreter was qualified. … Here, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to establish that Mother’s interpreter was qualified and by failing to administer an oath to her interpreter to provide an accurate translation.

Raymond McNeil Love v. Mike Herron, Daryl Kent, Jerry Jones, and Pen Products Correctional Industries (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2015

Code § 11-10-6-2 (mandating the establishment and operation of “industry and farm programs for offenders”). … immunity would eviscerate the Bivens remedy)

Drake v. Lawrence

524 N.E.2d 337 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1988

Drake counter-argues that the information clearly stated it was for "theft-possession of stolen property" and that he testified at the probable cause hearing that Griffin and his accomplice stole the items and then sold them … Fogarty (2nd Cir.1986), 806 F.2d 380 (in action for false imprisonment plaintiff need not show prior proceedings terminated in his favor but a conviction is deemed to establish probable cause and will bar any recovery.) 4