Case law

Randy L. Thornton v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Corrections, Marion County, Indiana, Matthew Pietrzak, Stephanie Buttz, Eric Lee, Dianna Johnson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 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, or the law of the case. … governmental employees: A lawsuit filed against an employee personally must allege that an act or omission of the employee that causes a loss is: (1) criminal; (2) clearly

Posey County v. Chamness

438 N.E.2d 1041 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1982

We also agree that there is no established or set method of impeaching a witness. … Posey asserts that the verdict is clearly excessive in light of the small amount of special damages: $324 in hospital and doctor bills and $581 for treatment by a clinical psychologist.

Rocca v. Southern Hills Counselling Center, Inc.

671 N.E.2d 913 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1996

Thus, public policy supports the recognition of an exception to the physician-patient privilege despite the absence of language to that effect in the statute which established the privilege. … An abrogation of the common law will be implied where a statute is enacted which undertakes to cover the entire subject treated and was clearly designed as a substitute for the common law or where the two laws are so repugnant

Copenhaver v. Lister

852 N.E.2d 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2006

The judgment will be reversed if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroncous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … And the findings will be deemed clearly erroneous if they are found not to support the judgment. Id.

Breitweiser v. Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication

775 N.E.2d 1175 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2002

Under the AOPA, a party may petition for disqualification of an ALJ upon discovering facts establishing grounds for disqualification. Ind.Code § 4 — 21.5—3—9(d). … having a closed-door meeting with a member of the governor’s staff regarding her qualifications, but the Breit-weisers fail to explain how this meeting regarding a personnel issue fell under the open door law and Lasley clearly

Security Trust Corp. v. Estate of Fisher Ex Rel. Roy

797 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2003

We then analyzed the viatical settlement contract under the test established in Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946). Id. at 1195. … "Such an amendment raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intent more clearly." Id.

Weldy v. Kline

616 N.E.2d 398 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1993

The issue of subject matter jurisdiction was clearly presented to the trial court and is the sole issue argued on appeal. Pursuant to TR 61 we therefore proceed to its determination. … Finally, Kline argues that Weldy is not immune from liability under the Act because he was engaged in horseplay at the time he threw Kline into the pool.

Harris v. Traini

759 N.E.2d 215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2001

As such, none of the defendants here is immune under the IRUS. . … Clearly, since Burrell, the standard has changed. As such, we do not find Martin dispositive here. .

McCutchan v. Blanck

846 N.E.2d 256 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2006

Accordingly, two requirements must be met in order for a witness to qualify as an expert. … Here, the McCutchans clearly had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the residence, and did so with the aid of Cornerstone before purchasing.

State v. Gill

949 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2011

In reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, we reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. at 728-29 . … The State argues that the facts against Gill, as stated in the information, establish that he committed an offense.

R.R.F. v. L.L.F.

956 N.E.2d 1135 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2011

It is well established that we may reconsider a ruling of our motions panel, but “ ‘we decline to do so in the absence of clear authority establishing that it erred as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Oxford Fin. … In a related argument, Father contends that the dissolution court’s order requiring a yearly redetermination of Mother’s tax credit subsidy is clearly erroneous because he has already established the amount Mother will receive

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: L.S. (Minor Child), and A.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

125 N.E.3d 628 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2019

Standard of Review [12] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights proceedings is well established. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229-30.

Old Town Development Company v. Langford

349 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1976

Even more important for our purpose, additional exceptions made inroads on caveat lessee and a landlord's tort immunity. Five clearly developed exceptions emerged. … To establish personal liability under this rule the Supreme Court of Indiana in Hinds v.

Pickett v. Kolb

142 Ind. App. 78 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1967

On the basis I don’t think there is enough qualification, qualifying evidence here to show that this man is qualified at the present time to give an estimate of the speed when there are skid marks; there are so many variable … It has been held by the Supreme Court of Indiana that the exclusion of evidence is harmless where the facts sought to be established by such evidence were established by other evidence. Boxell v. Bright Nat.

Commissioner, Department of Revenue v. Fort

760 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2002

One such regulation provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a commercial vehicle if that person has "no established history or clinical diagnosis of rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular … Nothing in the record establishes or even suggests that the 1988 report has any continuing scientific validity.

Community Hospitals of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Neuro Division

594 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1992

The Quality Assurance Council therefore qualifies as a "peer review committee" under the statute. All communications to a peer review committee shall be privileged communications. … IC. 84-4-12.6-2(a) The party which seeks to avoid discovery has the burden to establish the essential elements of the privilege being invoked. Ray v. St.

Weenig v. Wood

169 Ind. App. 413 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1976

There was evidence before the jury which established that Weenig published many of the defamations in Indiana. … While the thrust of this qualified privilege is clearly of common law origins, see, e.g., Prosser, supra, at 789, Weenig attempts to raise for the first time in his reply brief the contention that his statements were protected

Mitchell v. State

712 N.E.2d 1050 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1999

State, 600 N.E.2d 560, 567 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), we held *1055 that when the evidence at trial clearly establishes that the felonies committed by the defendant occurred in the proper sequence, no fundamental error results from … The State’s evidence clearly established that Mitchell’s felonies occurred in the proper sequence. Therefore, we find no fundamental error.

Hammon v. State

809 N.E.2d 945 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2004

s statement clearly was related to the facts and cireumstances surrounding the startling event and this element is met. … We conclude this choice of words clearly indicates that police "interrogation" is not the same as, and is much narrower than, police "questioning."

Baker v. Baker

43 Ind. App. 26 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 1909

The rule and exception and principle governing the same are clearly stated in Creighton v. … The rules of this class of evidence are well established, and should not be extended. Such declarations, to be admissible, must be something more than mere general or random statements.