Case law

State of Indiana, acting on behalf of the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. International Business Machines Corporation

4 N.E.3d 696 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2014

Appellate courts “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). … The record clearly shows that the State did nothing to oppose IBM’s prejudgment claim, or to prove its sovereign immunity defense. Therefore, it lost on the merits.

Toney v. State

961 N.E.2d 57 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2012

Because the plain language of the statute provides that physical pain is sufficient to establish bodily injury, and because the evidence clearly shows that the victim experienced physical pain, we affirm. … In contrast to this requirement for “extreme pain,” there is no similar qualifying language with regard to bodily injury. All that is required is physical pain.

Culver-Union Township Ambulance Service v. Steindler

611 N.E.2d 698 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1993

He observed, however, "that Congress has seen no need to establish a uniform approach" in § 1983 actions. … Other limitations and impediments to § 1983 actions exist and are readily applied, e.g., immunity of some officers, rejection of punitive damages.

In Re: The Guardianship of A.M. v. Shapree Bailey v. Blanche Meriweather and Douglas Meriweather (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2015

While in [Grandparents]’ custody, all of [A.M.]’s medical needs and immunizations have been met. 16. … In contrast to Grandparents’ clearly-established financial and domestic stability, the record indicates that Mother has a history of unstable housing and employment, has had multiple contacts with

Richards v. Richards

60 Ind. App. 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1915

section shall not apply * * * to conveyance * * * when made to husband and wife. * * * ” The law affecting a conveyance of real estate to husband and wife has been frequently construed by the Supreme Court and the rule is established … If the language clearly shows an intention to take and hold the title as tenants in common, then such intention must be given effect.

Zagorac v. State

943 N.E.2d 384 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2011

When interpreting statutes, we use the following standard: The first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. … Thus, because charges were filed against Zagorac in relation to the arrest at issue, the arrest may be expunged from his record only if he qualifies under this statute. See id.

Happy Valley LLC v. Madison County Board of Commissioners

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2019

In 1899, the Indiana Legislature enacted the County Reform Act and thereby established a system for appropriations of county funds by the county council.5 The power of making appropriations was given exclusively … Compliance with the notice provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act is a condition precedent to filing a tort suit against a qualified political subdivision. Weaver v. Elkhart Cmty. Sch.

Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.

940 N.E.2d 328 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2010

Analyzing Indiana's relevant case law, it should be noted that this jurisdiction has never clearly characterized "an improvement to real property." See, eg., J.M. Foster, Inc. v. … Specifically, the designated evidence clearly reflects that Gale retired in 1986, whereas the claim was brought in 2007, or more than twenty-one years after his retirement.

Evans v. Schenk Cattle Co., Inc.

558 N.E.2d 892 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1990

To establish the propriety of medical treatment, expert testimony must be presented to establish the degree of care expected of the medical care provider. See Planned Parenthood of N.W. Ind., Inc. v. … , where this court found that it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury that no fault could be allocated to the State due to the fact that the State could not be considered a nonparty because it was a statutorily immune

Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Vasario

726 N.E.2d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2000

We will not set aside a judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. … Article 1, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states: “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong

WCB v. State

855 N.E.2d 1057 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2006

Nonetheless, even if the perpetrator's consent were an element of the offense, such `consent' could be established by showing the required element of criminal intent. Id. at 912 (citation omitted). … Privileges and Immunities Clause Finally, W.C.B. contends that the child molesting statute violates Article I, section 23 of the Indiana constitution.

Ledbetter v. Ball Memorial Hospital

724 N.E.2d 1113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2000

We review only for an abuse of discretion and reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Specifically, they argue that the Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, article I, § 23.

Haycraft v. State

760 N.E.2d 203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2001

Given this background, we conclude that Searber was sufficiently qualified to testify as a skilled witness. … Read in context, Haycraft was clearly objecting on expert testimony grounds under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, not on legal conclusion grounds under Indiana Evidence Rule 704. .

Reed v. Schultz

715 N.E.2d 896 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1999

Schultz were so entitled, the Rule 56 materials show that he was removed for just cause, and (3) the Superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity from any claim of damages. Dr. … (f) A person who otherwise qualifies as a hearing officer is not considered an employee of the agency solely because the person is paid by the agency to serve as a hearing officer.

Kent W. Abernathy, Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Bernard Carter, Prosecuting Attorney for Lake County v. Eric C. Gulden, Jeremy Crawford, David J. Klahn

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

Applying this well-established legal adage, we should apply the version of I.C. § 9-30-10-4 in effect at the time of the commission of the third triggering HTV-offense. … The added subsection 4(e) merely established that even though the application is triggered by the judgment of the third qualifying offense, the dates of the offenses are to be used to calculate whether

Brown v. Alexander

876 N.E.2d 376 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2007

P & L is a governmental agency of the City of Richmond. 1 The undisputed evidence established that a safety chain was missing from the trailer prior to the accident but had never been replaced. … In enacting the ITCA, the legislature could have allowed a claim to proceed where the governmental entity knew about the negligent actions and was clearly at fault.

In Re AC

905 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2009

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. … Mother further contends that the juvenile court erred by ordering her to establish paternity because paternity had already been established in August 2007.

Jorgensen v. State

567 N.E.2d 113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1991

Whether Defendant was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor allegedly used her immunized testimony from Gary Cochran's trial. V. … The independent evidence clearly establishes the corpus delicti of conspiracy. There was no error. VIIL Defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction for conspiracy.

Javon Crockett-Berry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2015

Moffitt agreed to discuss the case on the condition that he be given immunity. … This would run counter to the balancing scheme established by Rule 403.

In re L.J.M.

473 N.E.2d 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1985

As a qualified shelter care facility, Black Lake Lodge was the appropriate place for L.J.M. to remain until his disposition decree was modified. … IC 20-6.1-6-15 provides: A school counselor is immune from disclosing privileged or confidential communication made to him as a counselor by a student.