Case law

McNall v. Farmers Insurance Group

181 Ind. App. 501 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1979

The McNalls filed suit against Farmers Insurance to establish the existence of coverage, the status of Waterson as an uninsured motorist, his liability and the amount of damages. … Error in assessment is established if, as in the present case, it clearly appears from uncontradicted evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff.” 178 N.E. at

Gary Pennington and Sherry Pennington v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Master Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-WF1 (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2015

Bank cannot carry its burden to establish a prima facie showing that it is entitled to summary judgment. … organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Melo v. State

744 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2001

Shepherd, 733 N.E.2d 987, 989-990 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied, this court held: When interpreting the meaning of a statute, this court is guided by well-established rules of statutory construction. … It clearly states two requirements that must be met before the State may charge a person with interference with custody.

Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Friedland

175 Ind. App. 622 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1978

As an administrative agency, it is presumed to be qualified by knowledge and experience to perform this function. … (Emphasis supplied) 290 A.2d at 701-702 . * * * “The Public Utility Code clearly prohibits discrimination in rates and services for whatever reason' and just as clearly empowers the PUC to hear and decide such complaints.

Willie D. Williams v. State of Indiana

42 N.E.3d 107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2015

But even assuming that Williams was ineligible for the habitual- substance-offender enhancement, because Williams benefited from his plea agreement and the specific facts do not establish an objective reasonable … Accordingly, we accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s conclusions of law. Wilson v.

State Board of Accounts v. Indiana University Foundation

647 N.E.2d 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1995

The principle established by our supreme court in Sendak once again decides this question. … If the relationship "is, in fact, a fee-for-services (or goods) agreement then, clearly, an entity is not maintained or supported by public funds." Id. at 212-18.

Hobson v. State

795 N.E.2d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2003

Only 'one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert. Id. As such, a witness may qualify as an expert on the basis of practical experience alone. Id. … It is within the trial court's sound discretion to decide whether a person qualifies as an expert witness. Id.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. White

168 Ind. App. 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1976

It is widely recognized that the public represents an anonymous third party to the insurance contract, having a clearly definable interest in its interpretation.” 262 F.Supp. 1, 5 . … Since the purported qualifying phrase relies upon “permission” for its meaning, and since permission may be implied, the inquiry for the trier of fact remains the same. The judgment is affirmed.

Austill v. State

745 N.E.2d 859 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2001

It is the State's contention that the trial court properly denied Austill's Motion to Dismiss because he failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the two electric blasting caps, wire, and a battery operated detonation … When construing statutes, we give words and phrases their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning unless some contrary purpose is clearly shown. Smithhart v. State, 591 N.E.2d 149, 151 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).

In Re IA

903 N.E.2d 146 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

The trial court's judgment will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … The DCS has established a reasonable probability that Mother will not change regarding I.A.

McGill v. State

465 N.E.2d 211 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1984

In order to establish that one crime is an included offense of another, one must conclude that it “(1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the … Thus, it is doubtful that persons could be successfully prosecuted for criminal deviate conduct under subsection (b) for sexual intercourse, as this defeats the ‘spousal immunity’ concept in rape.” 2 .

Anderson v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. EMP. SEC.

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

This section of the regulations is clearly labeled, "Disqualifications." It does not attempt to set forth the criteria of eligibility nor the factors which must be considered to determine eligibility. … to whom it is applicable if they meet the qualifying requirements outlined in the next section.

Tamela J Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2026

We reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … Code § 35-33-5-2(b) provides: “When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either: (1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing

Indiana Environmental Management Board v. Town of Bremen

458 N.E.2d 672 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1984

In its opinion in McCord, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the AAA was applicable in the situation of a complaint filed by one bank regarding the granting of a permit to another bank to establish a branch bank. … Clearly, these procedures and the remedies for violations of the article are couched in discretionary terms. The LE.

Ashlin Transportation Services, Inc. v. Indiana Unemployment Insurance Board

637 N.E.2d 162 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1994

Clearly, the employees or personnel of a company are included within an accepted definition of “organization” or “trade.” … In administering the program, IDETS collects unemployment tax contributions from “employing units” which qualify as employers under the Act.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of Je.Q., Ja.Q., and N.Q., Children, and T.Q.(Mother) & A.Q. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

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.

State v. Gillespie

428 N.E.2d 1338 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1981

When the issue of guilt is properly before the trial court, Gillespie could possibly present this evidence at trial to establish a defense. … “Impossibility” is clearly not a viable defense in Indiana.

Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission

495 N.E.2d 779 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1986

The Commission also has authority to establish and review utility rates. … Section 9 defines "order" as "an agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privi *785 leges, immunities, or other legal interests of one (1) or more specific persons."

Morton v. Gaffield

51 Ind. App. 28 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1912

reward for the finding or procuring by one person, of a purchaser for the real estate of another, shall be valid, unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the owner of such real estate or his legally appointed and qualified … This letter clearly recognizes some authority in appellee over the farm of appellant, and clearly presumes that “my place” is a sufficient designation fully to advise appellee as to the place meant.

Dommer v. Dommer

829 N.E.2d 125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2005

Specifically, [husband] argues an interspousal immunity exception to Title III exists. … Subsection (b) provides immunity to persons relying in good faith on a warrant or extension of a warrant.