Case law

State Dept. of Rev., Inher. Tax D. v. Estate of Powell

165 Ind. App. 482 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1975

Powell was a qualified member of the Plan at his death. The Plan was established to supplement Social Security payments and the benefits of a previously established “Plan A.” … The stated purpose of the Plan was to establish a qualified annuity.

In Re the Adoption of H.N.P.G.

878 N.E.2d 900 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2008

In the summer of 2004, a paternity test established that Breedlove was not H.N.P.G.’s father. … The legislature established the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and probate courts.

Troutwine Estates Development Co. v. ComSub Design & Engineering, Inc.

854 N.E.2d 890 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2006

The trial court's findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … Photographs Because we conclude that the trial court properly refused to qualify Cup as an ex *903 pert witness, therefore excluding his testimony, we agree with the trial court that the Developers failed to establish the

Indiana Real Estate Commission v. Ackman

766 N.E.2d 1269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2002

The decision should be reversed only when it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess … Mere inconvenience is insufficient to establish prejudice. In re Curry Printers, Inc., 135 B.R. 564 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ind.1991).

In Re Creation of Conservancy Dist.

875 N.E.2d 222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2007

Crist did not file a motion seeking discretionary review with the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 56, and this case does not qualify for mandatory Supreme Court review pursuant to Rule 4(A)(1). … While we agree that Indiana Code section 14-33-2-28 clearly states that an appellant can appeal the trial court's order establishing a conservancy district directly to our Supreme Court, Rule 5(A) trumps that statute and

Benjamin Darrell Keen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

121 N.E.3d 131 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2019

Keen has not established that had he been advised of all of the above, he would not have pled guilty and gone to trial. … [18] The post-conviction court’s denial of Keen’s request for post-conviction relief is not clearly erroneous. [19] Judgment affirmed. Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Henry County Office of Family & Children

790 N.E.2d 155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2003

In summary, not only did the juvenile statutes prohibit the court from requiring anyone aside from the county to pay for services provided for K.J.A., the statutes that establish the Bureau clearly prohibit the Division from … s finding that K.J.A. qualified for services was not tantamount to the Division finding that the Bureau would pay for any services for which K.J.A. qualified. As we said above, the Division approved the A.L.J.'

Wanetta Marie Lloyd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 31 2015, 9:22 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense … An abuse of discretion occurs where 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 deductions to be

Pitts v. Mills

165 Ind. App. 646 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1975

The complaint further fails to allege sufficient facts to establish the additional requirements of IC 1971, 18-5-10-24, supra. … In Montagano , the court stated: “It cannot be seriously questioned thát taxpayers of an annexing city who do not qualify as remonstrators can maintain a declaratory judgment suit to challenge an annexation ordinance.

Gertz v. Estes

879 N.E.2d 617 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2008

Findings of Fact David and Nichelle argue that the trial court clearly erred in making its findings of fact. … In their Reply Brief, David and Nichelle suggest that the trial court's order somehow violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

Randy L. Hotmer v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2020

“To qualify for Medicaid, an applicant must meet both an income- eligibility test and a resources-eligibility test. … If either the applicant’s income or the value of the applicant’s resources is too high, the applicant does not qualify for Medicaid.” Id. (citation omitted).

Chamberlain v. Walpole

796 N.E.2d 818 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2003

Judge Robertson dissented in Warrick, writing, inter alia: I believe that language of IC 16-9.5-1-6 clearly authorizes Mary Wallace to maintain an action for wrongful death. … The above provisions clearly designate who is qualified to prosecute a claim. Plaintiffs-Appellees here fall within the scope of qualified persons: Lucille McKnight as spouse, and Shane Keith McKnight as child.

Lora Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation

10 N.E.3d 1034 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2014

First, we determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously in the statute. Id. … constitutional claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 For this reason we need not consider whether Hoagland complied with the ITCA’s provisions. 9  immunity

COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELF. OF LAKE CTY. v. Morrow

301 N.E.2d 787 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1973

provides, in part, as follows: "Duties of the county boards. — The county board of public welfare shall appoint a county director of public welfare who shall be appointed solely on the basis of merit from eligible lists established … Kelley clearly has an interest relating to the subject of this action.

U.S. Land Services, Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc.

826 N.E.2d 49 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2005

Surveyor then identifies qualified surveyors in the area where the job is to be performed and requests bids from various surveyors. … The trial court’s judgment will be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id.

Billy L. Musgrave, Jr. and Kim A. Musgrave v. The Aluminum Company of America, Inc., and Alcoa Fuels, Inc.

995 N.E.2d 621 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2013

This clearly would occur[] if and when[] the Plaintiff’s doctor informed the Plaintiff that there was a reasonable possibility if not probability that the Plaintiff’s injury was caused by an act of the … as a Matter of Law Having established that Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture, we next consider whether the Act grants the joint venture and its members immunity as a matter of law from a civil action

Baker v. Wagers

472 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Conneally, as supervisor of paternity testing, was eminently qualified to authenticate the challenged document. … However, Bradley is clearly distinguishable upon both the facts and the underlying analysis.

Puryear v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

790 N.E.2d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2003

An examination of Progressive’ policy and applicable contract law establish the contrary. … We further note that insurance-contract law establishes that Progressive’s policy clearly and unambiguously limited its coverage. This court interpreted an identical policy in Millspaugh v.

Gibson v. Indiana Department of Correction

899 N.E.2d 40 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2008

statute, we presume that the statute is valid and place a heavy burden on the challenger, who must clearly overcome that presumption.” … Similarly, one who violates Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-5 has clearly caused the death of someone.

Patten v. Smith

172 Ind. App. 300 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1977

Patten’s tendered instruction number 8, which was rejected by the trial court, reads as follows: “I instruct you that to establish that the defendant, Maurice Patten, or the defendants published the pamphlets with *305 reckless … This instruction, which is synonymous with the one given in this case, was determined to be “clearly impermissible” because it erroneously interpreted the New York Times standard. Beckley Newspapers v.