Case law

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.

John Collip, M.D. v. Vickie Ratts on behalf of Robert A.J. Ratts, and Little Creek Family Health Center, LLP

49 N.E.3d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

This result is clearly not what the General Assembly intended when it enacted this legislation. … them immune from the application of Indiana’s common law

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.

Ferguson v. Ferguson

634 N.E.2d 506 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 1994

The court found that in rem jurisdiction was established in the state where the company issuing the stocks was located. … However, Jennings involved actual child support proceedings seeking an order of support, which clearly requires in personam jurisdiction.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Mildred Borgwald v. Old National Bank and Raelynn Pound

12 N.E.3d 252 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2014

(Tr. pp. 131-32). 11  As this exchange clearly establishes, the Estate requested—as required to preserve the evidentiary ruling—to make an offer of proof with regard … Therefore, as Lana could not be qualified as a medical expert pursuant to Evid.

Pleska v. Zakutansky

459 N.E.2d 745 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 1984

Thus, the provision in Peter's Will regarding the payment of taxes does not clearly provide that the apportionment statutes do not apply. … Catherine argues that the award in this case exceeds the standards established in Mikesell v. Mikesell, supra.

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.

Martha Ferguson, Anthony Schmitt, Rebecca Schmitt, Mary Meadows, Christopher Schmitt, Rosemary Schmitt, Jerry Shillington, Christina Aleman, Steven Shillington v. Berton O'Bryan

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2013

Thus, because a beneficiary named in the will clearly satisfied the “known” requirement, he was permitted to proceed with a malpractice suit against the drafting attorney. … the Relatives were identified was not created until after the will was drafted, they clearly do not fall within this category.

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.

648 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1995

Petitioner established he was otherwise qualified for the position sought. The evidence does not, as a matter of law, establish by a preponderance that the Petitioner was, "... … [Bauermeister] established he was otherwise qualified for the position sought. The evidence does not, as a matter of law, establish by a preponderance that [Bauermeis-ter) was "...

Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Peabody Coal Co.

740 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2000

Section 68 does not require an operator to establish 'land capability of the approved postmining land use, as well as a variety of other land uses. … The DNR, citing to 310 IAC 12-5-68, argues that this interpretation of the rule is erroneous because the SMCRA clearly requires that a miner return the land to its pre-mining capability.

Weinberg v. Geary

686 N.E.2d 1298 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1997

Of course, the proponent of the evidence must establish at least a minimal foundation for receipt of the expert opinion. … Clearly, on this testimony and without any challenge or objection the court was well within its discretion in determining an adequate foundation had been laid for Dr.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Vernon General Insurance Co.

784 N.E.2d 556 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2003

That [Vernon] is a domestic company duly authorized and qualified in the State of Indiana to engage in such business as granted by the terms of its special charter, and it is thereby duly authorized and qualified to engage … The 1942 Declaratory Judgment also established that Vernon is not subject to regulation by the Department or by general insurance laws.

Lucero v. Lutheran University Ass'n

621 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1993

Plaintiff opined that he was 'not medically qualified, but offered no evidence as to why. [Record, p. 574]. 3. … Upon diagnosis with these conditions, Lucero's doctors determined Lucero was no longer medically qualified to serve in the United States Army.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Combs

873 N.E.2d 692 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2007

We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. … Clearly, these facts establish that Lumbermens had a basis to deny benefits wholly consistent with its contractual obligation to grant benefits only if a claimant is prevented from performing the essential functions of “any

Samuel C. Arp, II v. Indiana State Police

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2025

immunity. … This clearly is not what was intended by the Indiana legislature.

Admiral Insurance Company v. Joseph Banasiak

72 N.E.3d 491 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. … In other words, “[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court” or if the court misinterprets the law.

Bennett v. State

801 N.E.2d 170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2003

The use of the term does not establish that the terms "blood" and "body" refer to the same thing. II. … The presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary. Id. Thus, Bennett has the burden of establishing the lack of a rational basis. See Uhl v.

Jones v. Housing Authority of the City of South Bend

915 N.E.2d 490 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2009

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. at 1228 . … To establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under the Rehabilitation *495 Act and Title II of the ADA, Jones must show: (1) he is disabled as defined by the act; (2) he is otherwise qualified for participation or the

O'NEAL v. State

716 N.E.2d 82 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1999

Constitution with respect to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with probative evidence). … I don’t know if he’s qualified to test to that— to testify to that. COURT: I think he qualified himself earlier. He may answer. A. No. Q.

In Re the Marriage of Preston

704 N.E.2d 1093 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1999

We will not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Quillen v. … Section 411 establishes the vesting requirements for pensions governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Homer H.