Case law

Hawkins v. State

219 Ind. 116 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1941

The next three questions in varying language all ask the same thing in substance, whether she was promised immunity from a murder charge if she would testify in this case. … doubt, to make its own case in its own way; and the evidence may be very valuable in illustrating or establishing other material facts.

Monroe v. City of Bluffton

31 Ind. App. 269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1903

Spaulding, a duly qualified practicing physician, written authority to act as such health officer during Dr. Horne’s absence, after which Dr. … App. 98 , cited by counsel for appellee, but they are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. Those opinions expressly indicate that circumstances' might exist that would require a different holding.

Davis v. Eagle Products, Inc.

501 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1986

Walker could have been cross-examined during the deposition, his out of court statement qualified for an exception to the hearsay rule. Patterson v. … In order to establish an abuse of discretion, we must determine that the trial court's ruling was clearly against logic and effect of facts and circumstances before the court, as well as the reasonable and probable inferences

Cunningham Ex Rel. Cunningham v. Bakker Produce, Inc.

712 N.E.2d 1002 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 1999

The supreme court concluded that the IRUS does not create immunity from liability for the premises owner with regard to his own actions. Id. … Drake by Drake, 649 N.E.2d at 1030 (owner of silo failed to establish that plaintiffs activities were subject to the IRUS).

Creasy v. Rusk

696 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1998

The designated materials establish that Rusk suffered some impairment of his mental capacity. Rusk was admitted to BHC because he suffered from memory loss and confusion. … The Record, however, does not establish the degree of Rusk’s impairment or its effect on his ability to control his actions or understand the consequences thereof.

French v. State ex rel. Harley

141 Ind. 618 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1895

, and to establish himself in, said position. … In the last of these cases it was said (p. 516): “It is established law that an act of the Legislature can not be annulled by the judiciary in any respect unless it clearly contravenes some provision of the constitution.

Bauer v. City of Indianapolis

99 Ind. 56 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1884

If any error was committed by the court in its ruling in sustaining, to the extent stated, the objection to the question propounded, which we need not decide, it was harmless, as it clearly appears by the answer of the witness … The law in such a case will afford no immunity from liability to the injured person by proof that the crossing was no more dangerous than other crossings of a similar character in the city.

Seay v. Erwin

840 N.E.2d 385 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2006

[Katharine] is also qualified to work in retail, and seems to have little trouble getting a retail sales job. 14. … A trial court's findings of fact will be found clearly erroneous only when the record is devoid of evidence or reasonable inferences to support them.

Patricia Ann Brown, CPA v. Brown

776 N.E.2d 394 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2002

Thus, we find that Pat qualifies for remedies under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 due to the theft of her credit by Brown. I. … It was established for the protection of the court so that the court might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments advanced for a reversal where such a burden rests with the appellee.” Kokomo Ctr.

McKeown v. LTV Steel Co.

117 F.R.D. 139 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 1987

The foregoing arguments and other positions taken by the plaintiff have been clearly and repeatedly rejected by this and every other court to review them. See, e.g., Edgar v. … Four criteria must be established before the doctrine of collateral estoppel is invoked: (1) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior adjudication; (2) the issue was actually litigated and

McNab v. General Motors Corp.

987 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 1997

Recognizing this, Emmerson used age and seniority to decide who to recommend among those qualified. … Thus, Plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case of interference by demonstrating that they (1) belong to the protected class; (2) were qualified for their jobs; and (3) suffered an adverse employment decision under circumstances

Roberts v. Roberts

644 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1994

The court held that these facts do not establish a substantial and continuing change in cireum-stances because "{the amount of additional support Beverly's new companion provided her was not established nor was the nature … Duane [Beverly's ex-husband] only established Beverly was cohabiting with her boyfriend.

Cecilia Kelly v. GEPA Hotel Owner Indianapolis LLC, GEPA Hotel Operator Indianapolis LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation

993 N.E.2d 216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. … To establish an expert’s qualifications, only one characteristic— knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education—is required, so an affiant may qualify as an expert based on practical experience alone.

Jennings v. State

723 N.E.2d 970 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2000

Reversal is appropriate only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Roeder v. State, 696 N.E.2d 62, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). … In this instance, the profile report qualifies as a business record properly admitted under the business records exception to hearsay.

Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirment System

2 N.E.3d 814 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2014

This is not unreasonable, but it is not clearly dictated by the words of the statute. … The court found: The legislature did clearly want to differentiate the award of additional benefits based upon degree of impairment. The legislature also clearly set a range for that additional benefit of 10% to 45%.

Swami, Inc. v. Lee

841 N.E.2d 1173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2006

In Atkins, we affirmed the grant of equitable relief not merely because Niermeier had relied on misinformation from a government officer but because the property had not been redeemed by a qualified person and, thus, the … But where substantial justice can be ac *1179 complished by following the law, and the parties' actions are clearly governed by rules of law, equity follows the law. Id.

Scoopmire v. Taflinger

114 Ind. App. 419 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1944

Alger (1851) (Mass.), 7* Cush. 53, 85, is quoted in defining the police power: “The power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, … One of the most sacred of the inalienable rights of the individual citizen is his right to liberty — which includes immunity from the unlawful seizure and detention of his person by any agency of the state.

Brown v. State

671 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

Ohm clearly remembered having a conversation about the killings with Collins, as evidenced by his testimony: Q. What do you recall telling him [Col-ling]? … "The evidence establishes that Ohm's improper motive, which was to get the best deal for himself at Brown's expense ...." Id. (emphasis added).

Wright v. Nipple

92 Ind. 310 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1883

This instruction refers to circumstances established by the proof. If they, unexplained, clearly indicate that the transaction is fraudulent, the jury may draw the inference. … The omission to thus qualify the first proposition rendered the whole wrong, and it was therefore property overruled.

Robinson v. State

888 N.E.2d 1267 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2008

Here, we conclude that Hannon’s declarations were clearly against her penal interest when she told police that she had been smoking crack cocaine with Robinson. … In this case, Robinson was found to be in possession of cocaine at the Red Carpet Inn, which also qualifies as a family housing complex.