Case law

Freddie Rhodes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2016

Decision shall not be Court of Appeals and Tax Court regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … “There was simply nothing about the Appellants’ conduct or the conduct of their cohorts that was ‘clearly the mediate or immediate cause’ of their friend’s death.”

Washington Township v. Parkview Memorial Hospital

144 Ind. App. 359 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1969

The foregoing is clearly consistent with Indiana law as enunciated in the cases we have heretofore reviewed. … Again I wish to emphasize that my dissent does not advocate that we hold that an employed man who could not qualify as a poor person for the purchase of food, clothing and shelter can not, nevertheless, qualify as a poor

Carter v. Robinson

977 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Thus, expert testimony must be supported by appropriate validation or “good grounds” based on what is known establishing a standard of eviden-tiary reliability. Id. Focusing on the lack of appropriate validation, Dr. … The trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case, or if it misinterprets the applicable law. Id. at 976 .

Prudence Life Insurance v. Morgan

138 Ind. App. 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1966

It is our opinion that the record is replete with evidence conclusively establishing the following facts: 1. that the appellee was not personally aware of the fact that he was afflicted with emphysema prior to March 5, 1962 … However, in this case the record clearly indicates that the appellant insurance company cancelled, repudiated and rescinded the “policy as of the date of issue.”

Town of Darmstadt and Bob Stoops, Town Council President v. CWK Investments-Hillsdale, LLC, C. Wayne Kinney, and the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Board of Zoning Appeals

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

Code § 36-7-4-1602(c) (“A person is entitled to judicial review of a nonfinal zoning decision only if the person establishes both of the following: (1) Immediate and irreparable harm. (2) No adequate remedy … Parkhurst: Clearly, the time for appeal wouldn’t start until findings were made. Ms. Kasha: Right. Mr. Bohleber: Right, and that’s my recollection.

Dawayne J. Thomas v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

An abuse of 5 discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Likewise, prejudice, if any, caused by the jury learning of the prior conviction was diminished when, during voir dire, defense counsel conceded that his client had a qualifying prior offense: “One of the things that you

Lbm Realty, Llc, d/b/a Summer Place Apartments, an Indiana Corporation v. Hillary Mannia, an Indiana Resident

19 N.E.3d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

Is it fair to say that you had no understanding one way or the other whether you would be insured or qualify as an uninsured person under the apartment complex’s property insurance? … Furthermore, LBM asserts that because the lease in this case clearly permits subrogation, this Court should reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mannia.

Genario Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

We review its rulings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … “‘To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.’” Id. (quoting Casselman v.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Neville

434 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1982

Neville did incur medical expense for a circulatory condition, we would be unable to qualify this claim for benefits.” Record at 171. … Thus, the amount of the claim is clearly ascertainable.

Gillespie v. GEICO General Insurance Co.

850 N.E.2d 913 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2006

Issue Gillespie raises various issues, [1] which we consolidate and restate as whether Gillespie sufficiently "identified" the owner or operator of the vehicle that caused an accident and left the scene such that it qualified … Appellant requests an order from the Court to publish its opinion handed *921 down on April 19, 2006, because it "establishes, modifies, or clarifies a rule of law." See Ind. Appellate Rule 65(A)(1).

A.J.'s Automotive Sales, Inc. v. Freet

725 N.E.2d 955 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2000

As a previous transferor, Newman is not immune from liability. Id. … Clearly, these defenses do not comport with the strong public policy concerns set forth in Simmons Auto Sales, Inc.

Dwight Patton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2015

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, … We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this statute was enacted and Patton’s offense would now qualify as Class B misdemeanor.

Think Tank Software Development Corp., d/b/a Think Tank Networking Tech. Group and Think Tank Info. Systems v. Chester, Inc., Mike Heinhold, John Mario, Joel Parker, Thomas Guelinas, Jon Meyer, Daniel

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

Next, we concluded that Think Tank had established a dispute of material fact as to lost profits arising from Chester’s relationship with four specific customers. … To Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1404-PL-134 | April 14, 2015 Page 10 of 17  invoke this doctrine, the matters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible

Casey R. Greene v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2012

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). … 11  (1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual

London Witte Group, LLC v. City of Marion

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2023

with respect to intentional wrongdoing by the Mayor amount to nothing more than unsupported innuendo” and “[s]imply put, the City failed to adduce any evidence that Mayor Seybold did anything that could qualify … differently, [t]he verdict will be reversed only when it is apparent from a review of the evidence that the amount of damages awarded by the jury is so small or so great as to clearly

Raphael D. Driver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2017

We accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. … [30] Here, Driver was convicted of, and on parole for, criminal deviate conduct, a sex offense, and thus qualified for sex offender treatment by the Parole Board.

Phillip Rumley, Sr. v. Laurie Ferguson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2013

Mother claims that is so he and his new wife could qualify/buy a new house. Father says it[’]s because he paid her. Neither party can provide any such proof either way. … By its language, I.C. § 31-16-9-1 clearly applies only to the court entering the support order, not the court determining the arrearage. 6  In this case, the

William Groth v. Mike Pence, as Governor of the State of Indiana

67 N.E.3d 1104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2017

Conclusion In sum, we reject the Governor’s claim that executive privilege renders his response to APRA requests immune from judicial review. … The recipients with clearly identifiable state-based email addresses were in the following twenty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska

Ramon v. State

888 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2008

A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. … Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 46 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ("[S]imply by labeling a law `procedural,' a legislature does not thereby immunize it from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause."); Watts, 229 Ind. at

Swami, Inc. v. Franklin Drywall II, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Apr 29 2013, 8:27 am establishing the defense of res judicata … As such, this finding is not clearly erroneous.