Case law

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Herring-Jenkins

830 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2011

These factors “may establish the existence of a relationship between the individual and the insured automobile.” Id. … The deputy, in contrast, had clearly been using the vehicle prior to positioning it to control the scene.

Brandon McGrath v. State of Indiana

81 N.E.3d 655 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2017

The FLIR Warrant Here, the record clearly supports the conclusion that the police acted in good faith in executing the FLIR warrant. … App. 2009), McGrath has not established that any omission was material.

In Re Paternity of Ljs

923 N.E.2d 458 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2010

s birth, these factors do not, as the court concludes, establish Father's disregard for the welfare of L.J.S. … Assuming without deciding that Grandparents qualify as de facto custodians, they must still overcome the strong presumption in favor of Father, the natural parent, in order to gain custody of L.J.S.

"F.B.C.", a Pseudonym v. MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDWISE, MDWISE NETWORK, INC., and MDWISE MARKETPLACE, INC.

122 N.E.3d 834 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2019

F.B.C. has failed to establish that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Disclosure claim. II. … Restatement (Third) of Torts § 46 cmt. e (2012) (“Although an actor exercising legal rights is not liable . . . merely for exercising those rights, the actor is not immunized from liability if the conduct

Page v. Board of Commissioners of County of Clay

155 Ind. App. 215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1973

Other medical evidence presented by Page clearly established his traumatic neurosis to be the result of the accident. … Bearing the burden of proof, he presented testimony of two qualified physicians each of whom directly or indirectly concluded that his traumatic neurosis was a result of the accident.

Sexton v. JACKSON CTY BD. OF ZONING APPEALS

884 N.E.2d 889 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2008

This statement, taken at face value, only establishes that the properties to which counsel refers sold for the asking price; it does not establish that the property values did not decrease prior to their listing. … The trial court's findings and conclusions to the contrary are clearly erroneous.

Rector v. State

256 Ind. 634 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1971

With his competency established by legislative enactment, however, (Acts of 1873, ch. 107, § 1, re-enacted by Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 235, 1956 Repl. Burns Ind. … It follows logically that he, in his capacity as a witness should be accorded the same immunities as other witnesses, included among them that his character may be proven only by general *649 reputation, and not by specific

Indiana Department of Child Services v. A.B.

949 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2011

It is acceptable that the legislature has established a process for the state to pay for placement and a process for the county to be ultimately responsible. … But we cannot agree that the new provision is immune from any judicial review whatsoever. It is well established that Article 7 section 4 of the Indiana Constitution confers plenary appellate jurisdiction on this Court.

Turner v. Richmond Power and Light Co.

756 N.E.2d 547 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2001

In reviewing a trial court's findings of facts and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. Magness, 744 N.E.2d at 401 . … Thereafter, Citizens filed a summary judgment motion with the court arguing that it was entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Id.

SWANSON v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of Lilly's failure to accommodate under the ADA, Swanson must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Lilly was aware of her disability; and (3) Lilly failed … Because Swanson has failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability, her claim automatically fails, and the Court need not discuss other arguments raised by the parties.

Samper v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

231 Ind. 26 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1952

The retail price for the parts was clearly stated on the receipt and guarantee given the customer. … We are not at liberty to say the appellant could not make his contracts in this manner to qualify as “selling at retail.”

Anna Wood v. D.W., Minor Child, by next friend, Rhonda Wood

47 N.E.3d 12 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … Evidence Rule 702(a) states, A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific

Linda Martinez, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Martinez v. Oaklawn Psychiatric Center

128 N.E.3d 549 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2019

And in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. … Factual findings are clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support them, and a judgment is clearly Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2883 | July 12, 2019 Page 6 of 24  erroneous

Griese-Traylor Corp. v. Lemmons

424 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1981

The corporation shows that it has no business establishment, neither hires nor retains employees, solicits no business, and is not qualified to do business in the state of Indiana. … It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized.” 204 F.Supp. at 131-132 .

Nobbe v. Nobbe

831 N.E.2d 835 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2005

"'['TJlhe plain and unambiguous words of the will must prevail, and are not to be controlled, or qualified, by any conjectural, or doubtful construction growing out of the situation, circumstances, or condition, ef-ther of … The Will clearly establishes a specific bequest of stock to Appellants.

Derrick Weedman v. State of Indiana

21 N.E.3d 873 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

A claim that the trial court failed to find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. … Weedman has not established a nexus between his mental health and the offense. Weedman has not shown that either proposed mitigator was significant or clearly supported by the record.

Nahmias v. Trustees of Indiana University

444 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1983

We further found the limitation provision not vio-lative of either the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or of the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution … “The evidence most favorable to Toth clearly establishes that at some time prior to June 6,1970, two years before suit was commenced, Toth ceased relying on Lenk and decided to secure no further treatment from him.

William Wressell v. R.L. Turner Corporation

988 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

We find both of these conclusions to be clearly erroneous. The question that must be answered is whether various payments made by RLTC directly to Wressell or on his behalf constitute fringe benefits. … Wressell designated additional evidence tending to show that those payments were of a type that did not, in fact, qualify as being for fringe benefits.

Davidson v. Boone County

745 N.E.2d 895 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2001

With regard to the negligence claim the defendants in the first place are entitled to government immunity pursuant to Indiana Code, Section 34-4-16.5-3. … Here, the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

Huffman v. State

543 N.E.2d 360 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1989

On July 10, 1985, the State filed a petition requesting use immunity for Onie Huffman, appellant's mother. The petition also requested the court to compel her to testify. … In the case at bar, the trial court clearly articulated the brutality of the killing and appellant's participation therein.