Case law

Perkins v. Kocher

531 N.E.2d 231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1988

DISCUSSION Perkins is only required to establish prima facie error to obtain reversal of the judgment as Kocher has failed to file an appellee’s brief. Sharp v. Jones (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 593 . … These statutes and the regulation clearly provide that benefits derived from a plan qualified under ERISA may not be reached by legal or equitable process, see Tenneco, Inc. v.

Indiana State Highway Commission v. Curtis

704 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1998

These will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). The findings are clearly erroneous only when a review of the record leaves the appellate court firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … The Highway Commission was replaced by the Indiana Department of Transportation which was established in 1990. See Pub.L. No. 112— 1989, § 5, 1989 Acts 1140-47.

Miller v. Swhier

40 Ind. App. 465 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1907

But liberal construction does not mean a construction which will enlarge express statutory provisions so as to include a right not clearly given and inconsistent with other well-established and fundamental principles of law … But, when the right to an exemption is clearly established, it will be enforced notwithstanding formal or technical objections. 3. Haas v. Shaw (1883), 91 Ind. 384, 394 .

Menges v. Depuy Motech, Inc.

61 F. Supp. 2d 817 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 1999

McKenzie’s credentials qualified him as an expert his opinion is unreliable. … To establish a product defect in this case, Menges offers the testimony of Dr. Alexander, Ph.D. 8 Dr.

Rogers v. Rogers

876 N.E.2d 1121 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2007

At some point, A.R.R. was diagnosed with immune deficiency, and she struggled with constant sickness in her younger years. … Because the trial court is charged with determining the credibility of the witnesses, the findings or judgment will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id.

Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

969 N.E.2d 596 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2012

This Court extends cautious deference to decisions within the special expertise of the Tax Court, and we do not reverse unless the ruling is clearly erroneous. Id. … The Department insists that UPS is not subject to the premiums tax because it did not comply with the various provisions of the statute, see supra n. 4, and thus does not qualify for an exemption.

Billingsley v. State

960 N.E.2d 882 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2012

She asserts, however, that the State produced insufficient evidence at trial to establish judgment under one of the predicate offenses. … Trotter’s certified BMV record, which showed that Trotter’s license had been suspended, but did not show that Trotter had received a previous driving while suspended conviction,” and that here, by contrast, the BMV Record “clearly

Simms v. State

791 N.E.2d 225 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2003

Clearly, each offense contains more than one essential element separate and distinct from the essential elements of the other offense. … Simms contends that maximum sentences should be reserved for the worst offenders with the worst records, and that he does not qualify as a “worst offender.”

Bradley A. Estabrook v. Mazak Corporation

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2020

inapplicable exception, Estabrook asks that we interpret the statute to include a further exception for a product that undergoes enough transformation—whether due to repair, refurbishment, or reconstruction—that it no longer qualifies … The other key provision is Subsection 34-20-3-2(f), which further establishes that Section 1 is a “repose period”—meaning that it does not extend a plaintiff’s time to sue but limits it.

Christian Ricker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this May 15 2015, 9:31 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … Ricker’s counsel failed to object to the use of CAAS evidence or Hahn’s status as a qualified expert.

Bergner v. State

73 Ind. Dec. 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1979

Barry Mones was qualified as an expert photograph examiner for the F.B.I. His analysis of the photographs revealed they were “authentic and . . not composites or altered.” … There were three main grounds used by the State to establish the foundation. They clearly demonstrate a sufficient degree of authenticity for the admission of the photographs.

Clemans v. Wishard Memorial Hospital

727 N.E.2d 1084 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2000

In essence, it asks us to create a zone of temporal and spatial immunity while Clemans crossed from one portion of Wishard’s premises to the other. … Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 474 N.E.2d 1013 (Ind.1985), which we find to be clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Schafer

598 N.E.2d 540 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1992

Finding 18 is that Schafer's illness "denied [him] an opportunity to qualify to participate in athletic competition." … That analysis is not clearly erroneous.

Randy Stahl v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1998

Because the circumstances under which this affidavit was given do not establish sufficient indicia of truthfulness, it does not qualify under the 803(15) exception to the hearsay rule. … If believed, this statement definitively establishes that the money was stolen.

Keener School Township v. Eudaly

93 Ind. App. 627 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Hart now is and since January 1, 1927, has been the elected, qualified and acting township trustee of Keener Township, Jasper County, and that Morgan L. … This action is clearly an action for breach of contract.

Johnson v. Steffen

685 N.E.2d 1117 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1997

As noted by the majority, until recently the Fireman’s Rule, established in Indiana in Woodruff v. … First of all, the Rescue Doctrine imposes liability and the Supreme Court clearly thinks that the imperiled person may be liable for his actions after the rescue had commenced.

Citizens' State Bank v. Fountain Trust Co.

95 Ind. App. 2 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1932

Adkins died and The Fountain Trust Company of Covington, Indiana, duly qualified as executor of his last will. … The case *7 before us clearly shows that Leslie W. Adkins was not only a party to the record but also a party to the issue. The case was set for trial on November 7th. All the parties were before the court on that day.

South Bend Public Transportation Corp. v. City of South Bend

428 N.E.2d 217 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1981

power when it authorized the redevelopment commissions to be established as special taxing districts. … It is clearly established that boards of county commissioners possess only such powers as have been granted expressly by statute and those which must be necessarily implied to execute some expressed power. K. G.

State v. Cleland

471 N.E.2d 722 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1984

Cleland presented no competent evidence to establish his claims. … Moreover, when two or more words are grouped together, general words will be limited and qualified by special words. Lincoln National Bank v.

Reeves v. Corning

51 F. 774 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · Aug 19, 1892

It ought not to he allowed, unless it is clearly made to appear ihat the court has been imposed upon or misled. Here no such showing is made. … The case 'last cited fully discusses the scope of the fourteenth amendment, and clearly shows that it does not limit the proper exercise of the police 'power of the states.