Case law

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

Dontae M. Clark v. State of Indiana

6 N.E.3d 992 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2014

An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. … Clark has failed to establish fundamental error in this regard. II.

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.

Haggard v. PSI Energy, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1991

upon the rights, privileges or immunities secured to the complaining party by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is "private" on the one hand, or "state action

Westhoven v. Lincoln Foodservice Products, Inc.

616 N.E.2d 778 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1993

Clearly, the ADA places a congressional imprimatur upon the prohibition of discriminatory employment practices in the private sector. … At best, it is a misguided attempt to editorialize upon matters clearly beyond the scope of the Commission's authority.

Clark v. Sporre

777 N.E.2d 1166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2002

The second stated in part “that expert testimony is necessary in this case both to establish the standard of care to be exercised by physicians and to establish whether or not the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause … necessary in this case both to establish the standard of care to be exercised by physicians and to establish whether or not the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause of the injuries claimed.

Brenda Sue Gittings and Marc Richmond Gittings v. William H. Deal

84 N.E.3d 749 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2017

Trust A was designed to be a Q-TIP trust and qualify for a marital deduction to minimize the federal estate tax. … Those appealing the trial court’s judgment must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. Id.

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.

Anderson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

412 N.E.2d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1980

“The worker adjustment assistance provisions enacted in 1962, however, have clearly not been very effective. For the first seven years of the program, no worker was found eligible for its benefits. … to whom it is applicable if they meet the qualifying requirements outlined in the next section.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. American Dairy of Evansville, Inc.

167 Ind. App. 367 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1975

Initially, it should be noted that in construing the relevant statutory language granting the claimed exemptions, we are bound by the established rule of construction that in the presence of ambiguity the language of the … Though clearly essential to the cleaning process, their impact is arguably less direct than that of the cleaning compounds. The drawing of a distinction at this point may seem unduly technical.

State of Indiana v. Justin Bazan

45 N.E.3d 856 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 974 (Ind. Ct. … The two statutes have markedly different thresholds for establishing a violation.

Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction

871 N.E.2d 975 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2007

He argues that the tape would have clearly proven his claims and allegations. … Justice Rucker concurred, stating that he thought Blanck was wrongly decided but that Blanck , and the authority on which it rests, is now established law. 6 .

Richard Vance Hastings v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

58 N.E.3d 919 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2016

The trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court … Belloto’s testimony was done pursuant to the established Indiana Rules of Evidence.

In Re Guardianship of JK

862 N.E.2d 686 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2007

s] interests are best served by placement with the [Kindreds] is clearly and convincingly overcome by evidence proving that [J.K.' … We conclude that the trial court's termination of the guardianship is not clearly erroneous.

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. Wernert

36 N.E.3d 1185 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2015

again to qualify, effectively creating a second wave of submission for all hospitals without a set deadline, and that the standards established by FSSA are reasonable and adherence to those standards is not arbitrary and … Methodist argues that, because Parkview’s original submission fell short of establishing it qualified for DSH payments, Parkview demands special treatment.

Hubbard v. State

849 N.E.2d 1165 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2006

The right of privacy is not absolute, but is immune only from unjustified government interference. Carey v. Pop. Serv., Intern’l, 431 U.S. 678, 687 , 97 S.Ct. 2010 , 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). … Moreover, Hubbard has failed to establish that the Sexual Misconduct Statute is unconstitutional. Affirmed. BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur. 1 . Ind.Code § 35-44-1-5 ("the Sexual Misconduct Statute”). 2 .

Marter v. City of Vincennes

118 Ind. App. 586 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1948

All subscribed to an oath and qualified in the manner provided by law. … One of the exceptions was, “All former ordinances establishing the Fire Department.” Since ordinance No. 438 did not establish or attempt to establish a fire department, it was clearly repealed by No. 651.

Community Care Centers, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

716 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1999

As Community Care further suggests, these provisions are qualified by language in Paragraph 5 which allows the State to recover “money paid to the plaintiffs in Community Care Centers, Inc. v. … Intervenors. contend that in *554 such instance, courts have “applied the Purchased Immunity Doctrine as a complete ban on fee awards from parties that have purchased immunity by hiring their own attorneys.”

Vann v. United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co.

790 N.E.2d 497 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2003

The fact that parties disagree as to the interpretation of the policy does not establish an ambiguity. Id. at 1183 . … Specifically, the truck Upchurch was driving qualifies as a “motor vehicle” under paragraph one of the Policy’s definition.

Ross v. State

704 N.E.2d 141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1998

However, any such liability established under this exception is, nevertheless, limited where the contractor has merely followed plans provided by the eontractee/owner. … As such, we conclude that a curve in the road does not qualify as "inherently dangerous.” 5 .