Case law

American Surety Co. of New York v. State Ex Rel. Taber

102 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

It appears that Primich was the duly elected and qualified Justice of the Peace in Calumet Township in Lake County, Indiana, and that while there was a duly elected and qualified constable, for some reason or other (not clear … The evidence clearly established that the appellee Taber served as special constable and had not been paid the sums to which he was thereby entitled.

Roberts Ex Rel. Estate of Roberts v. ACandS, Inc.

873 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2007

Article I, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon … The Appellee requests that this Court’s opinion be published because it establishes a new rule of law as to the constitutionality of the Comparative Fault Act as applied in Workers’ Compensation.

McLean v. State

638 N.E.2d 1344 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1994

Once it is established that a photograph is an accurate depiction of that which it is intended to portray, its admissibility turns on the question of relevancy. … If there exists substantive evidence of probative value to establish every material element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, we will not disturb the convietion. Geans v.

State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Correction, and Indiana State Employees' Appeals Commission v. Debra Mills

76 N.E.3d 861 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2017

The SPD supervisor further added that only one of the Employees, Bird, qualified for bumping rights under the statute, and he declined such an offer. … First, however, we note that to the extent that the resolution of this case hinges on an interpretation of the (now repealed) State Personnel Act, we must “determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously

DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer

815 N.E.2d 558 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2004

Hensler, 716 N.E.2d 372 (Ind.1999), specifically determined that the immunity of the Act does not extend to immunity from intentional torts. Id. at 380 . Our supreme court stated: As we noted in Stump v. … The record clearly establishes that Swindel attacked Farmer on DePuy's premises at the moment Farmer intended to clock out of his third-shift service.

Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., N.A. v. Woodward

848 N.E.2d 1175 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2006

However, because the statute does not clearly indicate whether “remainder beneficiary” includes both vested and contingent beneficiaries, we must interpret the statute. … In Cox , the plaintiff requested an accounting of the testamentary trust established by the residue of his great-grandfather’s estate.

Offutt v. Sheehan

168 Ind. App. 491 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1976

This was the first contact that your affiant has ever had with Attorney James Redwine Offutt contends that inasmuch as her theory of recovery was intentional tort, the above evidence clearly requires a new trial. … One may be an expert by training or experience, and if properly qualified may testify as to the nature and conduct of a business. See, Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind.

Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals v. SBA Towers II, LLC

927 N.E.2d 915 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2010

A decision is clearly erroneous when it lacks substantial evidence to support it. Town of Beverly Shores v. Bagnall, 590 N.E.2d 1059, 1061 (Ind.1992). … Established case law interpreting the Telecommunications Act has made clear that "generalized aesthetic concerns do not justify the denial of a permit." PrimeCo Personal Communications, Ltd. Partnership v.

Union Ins. v. STATE EX REL. IND. DEPT., ETC.

401 N.E.2d 1372 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1980

The legislature would be granting to particular citizens privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, would not belong to all citizens... . … This lawsuit did purport to establish Union as a valid insurance company, but it does not estop this action.

INDIANA DEPT. OF ST. REV., ETC. v. American Dairy

338 N.E.2d 698 · 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.

Estate of Carnahan v. ISM, Inc.

510 N.E.2d 748 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1987

The covenant before us clearly confers a benefit on ISM and imposes a duty on the Estate since it obligates the Estate to fore-go suit against Wade's "principal or master." … Hence, ISM is a third-party beneficiary to the agreement and can enjoy the *751 immunity from suit promised by the Estate in exchange for the $25,100.00 tendered by Wade.

Commissioner of the Indiana Dept. of Insurance v. Tim Black, as Husband and Personal Rep. of Kay Black

962 N.E.2d 675 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2012

The supreme court analyzed whether the insurer of a non-qualified health care provider could contribute to a settlement in order to gain access to the PCF. Id. … However, this evidence is insufficient to establish that the amount was paid out on behalf of Dr.

South Tippecanoe School Building Corp. v. Shambaugh & Son, Inc.

182 Ind. App. 350 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1979

If so, then we will deny subro-gation against those Defendants whose interests qualify under the contract and in whose favor the Owner’s contractual waiver operate. The recent Morsches case speaks to the problem. … For cases contra, limiting subcontractor immunity from liability, see, Paul Tishman Co. v.

Indiana Broadcasting Corp. v. Star Stations of Indiana

180 Ind. App. 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1979

The qualification IBC sought was not clearly established, therefore the easement is not terminated. GTA v. … The trial court, following the rule of law that a qualification which terminates an easement must be clearly established, could logically discover that the clause in issue here did not clearly establish the qualification.

Concerned Citizens of West Boggs Lake v. West Boggs Sewer District, Inc.

810 N.E.2d 720 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2004

It appears to the Commission that rendering of this type of service is more clearly not within the intent of the [...] CTA statute than the situation described in Merrillville. ... … The IURC also declared that: In paragraph 4 above, evidence establishing [the Utilities's] lawful ability to obtain a[ CTA] is identified.

McCullough v. Allen

449 N.E.2d 1168 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1983

Tabor, supra, was clearly admissible to prove that at least one competent and reasonable attorney considered Linda's claim worthy of litigation. … qualified to give such testimony.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration v. Lance Patterson

119 N.E.3d 99 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2019

To qualify for Medicaid, an applicant must meet both an income-eligibility test and a resources-eligibility test. Id. … A court may set aside an agency action only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in

Lewis v. State

629 N.E.2d 934 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1994

Furthermore, the prosecutor has the duty to voluntarily disclose any deals made with the State’s witnesses, such as promises, grants of immunity, and rewards offered in return for testimony. Id. … Clearly, a state may not sustain a conviction based upon testimony known to be perjured. Nor may the prosecution stand mute while testimony known to be false is received into evidence.

Duran v. Duran

585 N.E.2d 1373 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1992

On January 27, 1986 Donald established an IRA with the Credit Union naming Children as the only beneficiaries. The Credit Union designated this account number 17192-03, IRA. … Clearly, Donald was the sole owner of the IRA and we reject Elnora’s argument to the contrary.

Smith v. State

839 N.E.2d 780 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2005

We have held that when considering who qualifies as "the custodian ... or another qualified person" under Rule 902(9), "the phrase 'other qualified witness' [sic] should be given the broadest interpretation" in order to encourage … Therefore, according to Smith, the trial court was bound by the presumptive four-year sentence established by the legislature. However, Smith fails to appreciate the seriousness of his particular offense.