Case law

Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co.

96 Ind. App. 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1932

Most of the evidence is not in conflict and it establishes the following facts, to-wit: That the appellant had a general checking account in the appellee bank in a sum in excess of $235.00; that on March 23, 1929, while said … Clearly the California case is not in point on the controlling questions of the instant case.

Hay v. Baumgartner

870 N.E.2d 568 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2007

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions … In establishing whether the findings or the judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to. be drawn therefrom. Id.

Thomas Mustillo v. Area Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Joseph County and Ceres Partners, LLC (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2019

The Bagnalls have not demonstrated that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous. … A decrease in street parking and an increase in danger to the children in the park are injuries that would be sustained by the community as a whole and would not qualify Mustillo as aggrieved.

City of Lawrence v. City of Indianapolis

167 Ind. App. 279 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1975

The board of directors created pursuant to that act shall serve as directors of the [Mass Transportation] Authority until their successors have been appointed and qualified as provided in this act.” … Finally, the language of Section 19 (8) of the MTA Act is clearly language of appropriation rather than of authorization to accept.

A.J.R. v. State

24 N.E.3d 1000 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2014

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion. Id.

Rohn v. Thuma

77 Ind. Dec. 569 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1980

It is well established that a child has a right to be supported in a style consonant with the societal position of his parents. … Such factors clearly governed the Missouri court’s decision in Nelson v.

Thompson v. Ferdinand Sesquicentennial Committee, Inc.

637 N.E.2d 178 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1994

Thus, Thompson argues she need only show a violation of that statute to establish liability. … She contends the immunity provisions of I.C. § 7.1-5-10-15.5, which preclude liability absent a showing of visible intoxication, are inapplicable. Thompson is mistaken.

Town of Leo-Cedarville v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission

754 N.E.2d 1041 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2001

, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (8) In exeess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short … When we incorporated[,] his establishment was within] the boundaries of our corporation...." Record at 470, 473-75.

Michael A. Wartell v. Lawrence H. Lee

47 N.E.3d 381 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2015

Wartell does not establish that the statements were objectively verifiable without referring to extrinsic evidence. [20] In Dugan v. … qualify for consideration as defamation per se.”

Johnson v. State

832 N.E.2d 985 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2005

On May 28, 2002, Judge Sleva qualified as a special judge and assumed jurisdiction. … Clearly, Dr.

Redar v. Allstate Insurance Co.

497 N.E.2d 566 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1985

The exclusions were clearly marked and are not inconspicuous. The mere existence of a controversy regarding the meaning of an insurance policy does not establish the existence of an ambiguity. Taylor v. … As Allstate points out, Redar gives no reference to the record which would establish a factual basis for waiver.

Rice Ex Rel. Lopez v. Harper

892 N.E.2d 209 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2008

Lopez designated two affidavits with exhibits to establish a chain of custody for the Conditions of Service. … The phrase “Customer agrees to waive any immunity provided by Worker’s Compensation” clarifies the previous sentence.

Lasater v. Lasater

809 N.E.2d 380 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2004

Finding 120 states, "The evidence established that the minor child is intelligent and performing well in school." Appellant's App. Vol. I, p. 65. … Indeed, she baldly claims, "The judge articulated his bias quite clearly on several occasions." Appellant's Br. p. 18.

Dahnke v. Dahnke

535 N.E.2d 172 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1989

Alan Dye, an expert in counseling, testified Pam's academic record and S.A.T. score qualified her for admission to Purdue's nursing school. … While the first portion of finding number 22 is correct, the uncontradicted evidence clearly establishes Pam's education was interrupted during their marriage due to her homemaking and child care responsibilities.

Thomas v. Hemmelgarn

579 N.E.2d 1333 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1991

Delron Corporation failed to qualify its offer or sale of shares under the private offering exemption pursuant to 1980 IC 23-2-1-2(b)(10)(iii). 5. … It clearly was appellants' burden to establish that appellees were in part delicto with them.

Fisher v. State

785 N.E.2d 320 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2003

Standard of Review The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Saylor v. … The actual text of the Fourteenth Amend-meni provides in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

J.S. v. J.D.

941 N.E.2d 1107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2011

On August 10, 2009, J.D. filed a petition to establish visitation with A.H. … Yet the plain language of section 31-19-16-2 clearly applied. When interpreting a statute, the first step is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. City of N.

Zambrana v. Armenta

819 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2004

Because the duty of a landowner to a business invitee was well-established, courts merely: needed to look at the issue of foreseeability. Id. … Indeed, reducing his argument to its essence, Zambrana seeks immunity on precisely the basis of that indifference.

Metropolitan Development Commission v. Goodman

588 N.E.2d 1281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1992

2) Did the trial court err in determining that the apartment use of the carriage house was legally established before the effective date of the existing zoning ordinance and therefore qualified for the nonconforming use exception … Special findings and the judgment flowing therefrom will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Welborn Memorial Baptist Hospital, Inc. v. County Department of Public Welfare

442 N.E.2d 372 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1982

(Act) implicitly grants it the authority to establish rules and regulations such as the one in question. … IC 12-5-6-11 clearly states that the county is responsible for emergency medical care given in any hospital to a person who qualifies for assistance. . For present law see IC 12-5-6-2. .