Case law

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.

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.

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.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush

736 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 1989

Clearly, a person who can establish nonliability can petition for reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred while complying with an order received after October 17,1986. 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (b)(2). … Furthermore, the source of the funds for reimbursement is the Superfund, a trust fund established in the United States Treasury and all suits to take money from the public treasury implicate sovereign immunity.

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.

Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Smithville Telephone Co.

31 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1998

interconnection agreements, it has con- *637 struetively waived its sovereign immunity. … It does not appear that the parties in this action have clearly designated any of their acts as being under any of these provisions.

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.

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.

GTA v. Shell Oil Co.

171 Ind. App. 647 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1977

The language establishing the limitation of the easement in this case, however, is not clear. … The language of paragraph three, which includes the words “so long as”, in the February 27, 1967 amendment to the lease, establishes that the easement was intended to be a qualified easement determinable upon the happening

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

French v. State

547 N.E.2d 1084 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1989

We fail to see how this qualified as incompetency of counsel. In fact, a review of the record clearly demonstrates that *1088 counsels (two had been appointed to represent appellant) were adequately prepared for trial. … This Court will not hold counsel ineffective on matters that are clearly a matter of trial strategy. VanEvey v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 245 .

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.

Parker v. State

74 Ind. Dec. 113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1980

This clearly is rationally related to the State's objective. 427 U.S. at 814-15 , 96 S.Ct. at 2567-2568 (footnotes omitted). … The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. 3 .

City of Teree Haute v. Hudnut

112 Ind. 542 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1887

It was objected that this testimony was incom *550 petent because the witness was not shown to be an expert qualified to give an opinion. … The witness was, as the evidence shows, one of the owners of the mill, engaged in operating it, and had knowledge of the structure and its injury, and we regard this as prima faeie sufficient to qualify him.

Naanes v. State

143 Ind. 299 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

Her counsel insists that the action of the trial court in admitting in evidence these proceed *304 ings was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. … also be said that a person found, upon the inquiry of a commission, not to be a fit subject for admission, as a patient, for treatment, into an insane asylum, may, nevertheless, be of such mental unsoundness, as to have immunity

CHEESMAN v. SWITZER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 17, 2022

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."