Case law

McGary v. State

421 N.E.2d 747 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1981

The special judge qualified and assumed jurisdiction on December 2, 1976. … We believe the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Floyd v.

Howard v. State

672 N.E.2d 944 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1996

State, our supreme court stated: "To qualify as fundamental error,' the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.... … However, we concluded that under the particular circumstances of that case, the instructional error regarding the specific intent to kill was clearly harmless. Id. at 592 .

Vandalia Coal Co. v. Yemm

175 Ind. 524 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1910

In this contention counsel are clearly in error. … This action is clearly not an extension of the term, but is the conferring of a new right out of term.

Lowery v. State

478 N.E.2d 1214 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1985

This clearly affected her credibility. … Code § 35-41-2-4 (Burns Repl. 1979), the statute establishing accessory liability.

Indiana State Employees Association, Inc. v. Negley

357 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 1973

There we pointed out that Vitarelli, an Interior Department employee who had not qualified for statutory protection under the Civil Service Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 632 et seq., ‘could have been summarily discharged by the Secretary … The public interest with reference to the tenure of state agency employees was clearly illustrated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as follows: “. . .

Marigold Overshiner and Earl Overshiner, Individually and as Parents and Guardians of their Minor Daughter, Kaitlyn Overshiner v. Hendricks Regional Health and Ian Johnston, M.D.

119 N.E.3d 1124 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2019

Shuman “as qualified to be an expert,” the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Any statement from the defense? … provides that a motion for judgment on the evidence shall be granted “[w]here all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury . . . are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdict thereon is clearly

Andert v. Fuchs

271 Ind. 627 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1979

properly directed a verdict in favor of the host-driver defendant, upon evidence that he operated his automobile at a speed of from 50 to 60 miles per hour on a “blacktop” surfaced street in a “drizzling rain” and entered a clearly … Saucerman and other cases, was qualified in Clouse, etc. v.

Ross v. City of Fort Wayne Board of Public Safety

590 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 1983

Second, plaintiff was qualified — in fact more qualified than several of the other candidates who were ultimately granted a position in the Academy. Third, despite being qualified, plaintiff was not offered a position. … To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.

Eichstadt v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc.

879 N.E.2d 1207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2008

We will only reverse if the findings and judgment are clearly erroneous. Id. Initially, Eichstadt argues that the trial court applied an improper legal standard in ruling on the motion to dismiss. … As to whether Campbell was the alter ego of Frisch’s, no evidence was presented to establish that Campbell had either ownership or control of Frisch’s.

Chevrolet of Columbus, Inc v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 19, 2024

s final determination is arbitrary, 3 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … To show an abuse of discretion, Chevrolet must show the Indiana Board’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or that it has misinterpreted the law.”

Vail v. Jones

31 Ind. 467 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1869

Y. 191 , under a similar statute to our own, that “a counter-claim, when established, must in some way qualify or must defeat the judgment to which the plaintiff is otherwise entitled.” … This provision (if needed for that purpose) clearly saves to defendants in equitable actions the right to set up any matter in the. answer in the nature of a cross-complaint which under the former practice could have been

Board of Commissioners v. Millikan

207 Ind. 142 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 4, 1934

limited and qualified, and a claimant for a refund of taxes wrongfully assessed and wrongfully paid must bring himself within the 1919 statute as limited and qualified by the proviso. … Our conclusion is that the right to recover taxes wrongfully assessed is prescribed by the statute and that this right is exclusive, and before appellees are entitled to a judgment they must bring themselves clearly within

Balzer v. American Family Insurance

805 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2011

do not conclusively agree or establish that the Plaintiffs vertigo was a result of his accident. … Proof that a tort was committed is not sufficient to establish the right to punitive damages. Id.

In the Paternity of M.S., L.S. and S.S. Maria Arriaga v. State of Indiana as Next Friend Gabriela Ivonne De Landa, (Mother), and Samuel Salazar, (Father)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2020

The trial court, however, found that Arriaga did not qualify as a de facto custodian. … She bears the burden of convincing us that the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous.

Indianapolis Horse Patrol, Inc. v. Ward

138 Ind. App. 368 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1966

to defame, and creates in them a legal immunity for any word, act or deed spoken or done by them. … This is the method employed herein by appellee in an attempt to establish the tort of common law conspiracy.

Shuttleworth v. State

469 N.E.2d 1210 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1984

There is no doubt that the evidence before the jury clearly shows nothing but very minimal payments for groceries, if that, from July, 1978, through December, 1980, for the support of his children. … He is qualified to pursue other employment; he simply did not do so. The jury was well within its bounds when it rendered its verdict, and we find that verdict was not contrary to law.

Ernst v. Underwriters National Assurance Co.

178 Ind. App. 77 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1978

The Supreme Court of Indiana clearly stated in State v. … Section 23 clearly creates a privilege personal to client.

Carter v. State

956 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2011

The mere fact that an alleged error implicates constitutional issues does not establish it was fundamental. Schmidt, 816 N.E.2d at 945 . … Courts consider the statutes, charging instruments, evidence, and arguments of counsel in order to determine whether the facts establishing one crime are the same as the facts establishing one or more elements of another.

State of Indiana v. Michael Stone

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

[14] The Court observed that statements by informants have qualified as against penal interest and been found sufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant in cases where: … We cannot agree, as the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable.

In Re Savage Credit Co. v. Talcott

213 Ind. 228 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1938

Talcott, Jr., was the duly qualified trustee of Schuyler L. … While it did not directly discuss the point herein presented, it did cause it to clearly appear that the provision of the statute just referred to applied to criminal contempt only.