Case law

Michael L. Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2020

Hollandsworth testified that Clark clearly knew what she and J.B. were arguing about when he intervened because J.B. was loudly and repeatedly saying, “You owe me for laundry.” Tr. Vol. 1 at 179. … comment during rebuttal in any way confused or misled the jurors as to their role as factfinders regarding the self-defense claim, the comment was isolated and, when viewed in context, would hardly qualify

Sinclair Refining Co. v. McCullom

107 Ind. App. 356 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 1940

It clearly appears that these conversations were not held in the presence of appellant and that there was no showing that the other parties to the conversation were not available as witnesses, and there was obviously no element … It is evident that the sole purpose of eliciting the facts stated by the witness was to establish the fact that appellee was unable to secure employment or retain his employment with subsequent employers.

Allied Fidelity Insurance v. State

413 N.E.2d 963 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1980

The act opened with a definitional section in which the General Assembly established the terminological foundation necessary to any comprehensive statutory enactment. … The portion of bond form enacted in 1905 was clearly intended to be used by both personal and corporate sureties. The 1927 addition to the form appears to have been designed for use by a personal surety.

Kerkhof v. Kerkhof

703 N.E.2d 1108 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1998

Therefore, the issue before us is not whether the trial court was required to treat the facts stated in the request for admissions as conclusively established, clearly it was so required, but whether the trial court’s eviden-tiary … Such a reliance could qualify as prejudice that would preclude withdrawal of the admissions. Gary, 550 N.E.2d at 831 . However, the trial court may consider whether such reliance was reasonable.

Bunch v. State

964 N.E.2d 274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

We therefore hold the post-conviction court clearly erred in denying her petition for post-conviction relief on this claim. III. Brady Violation In Brady v. … The post-conviction court also clearly erred in determining Bunch was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of a Brady violation by the State.

Noble County Board of Commissioners v. Fahlsing

714 N.E.2d 1134 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1999

Specifically, the County maintains that the home exemption provision does not include accessory structures and that, even if it did, the structure does not qualify as an accessory structure. … Clearly a house is a building while a home seems to imply something more.

Virijevich v. Chesterton

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2025

Defendants argue that the record lacks evidence to demonstrate any element of the prima facie case, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. [DE 35]. A. … This finding is determinative, so the Court will not address arguments relating to the other elements or to qualified immunity.

Jason B. Saunders v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2012

More particularly, to qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Willey v. … Saunders’s probation officer also established that he had amassed two other convictions.

SIZELOVE v. MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2022

Vore was not entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Mr. Sizelove's individual-capacity claim against Mr. Vore was not duplicative of his claim against the School; and (4) Mr. … Even assuming it was such an error not to explicitly address Defendants' Rule 72(a) Objections, it was harmless, given Defendants' failure to establish that the Magistrate Judge's order was "clearly erroneous or contrary

Cody v. State

259 Ind. 570 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1972

The trial court clearly did not err in permitting the question of first degree murder to go to the jury. … Solymos apparently attempting to establish incompetency on their part by asking a series of questions as to how they made their evaluation of the appellant.

Pollard v. Rea Magnet Wire Co., Inc.

674 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 24, 1986

As a body builder Pollard was particularly well qualified for some of the work he performed. … The evidence clearly showed that both Dame and Gomez had given patently false reasons for missing work.

Segally v. Ancerys

486 N.E.2d 578 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1985

More recently, this Court has observed that the moving party bears the burden of establishing that there exists no issue of material fact. … For those reasons, we believe that Segally has failed to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Styck v. Karnes

462 N.E.2d 1327 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1984

Read in conjunction with IC 29-1-18-5, this mandate clearly is not without qualification. The natural parent must be “properly performing his duties as natural guardian.” IC 29-1-18-6. … Because the guardian of the person is, by definition, vested with custody of the ward, see IC 29-1-18-1(a), it logically follows that proceedings to establish or terminate a guardianship are one of the “other proceeding^]

B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

covering any other business or place of business for the conduct of it in such a way as to prevent or inhibit the holder of a liquor retailer’s permit from being qualified … ordinance . . . covering any other business or place of business for the conduct of it in such a way as to prevent or inhibit the holder of a liquor retailer’s permit from being qualified

Sonny Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2018

In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. … the authority to grant use immunity to witnesses and obviate the self-incrimination privilege of the fifth amendment.”

Bickel v. Pfizer, Inc.

431 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2006

Dykstra wondering if the Plaintiff had some immune complex disease or other form of vasculitis that was induced by the Lipitor and which “could perhaps have contributed to her ischemic optic neuropa *920 thy.” … relevant and reliable, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Ethyl Corp. v. Forcum-Lannom Associates, Inc.

433 N.E.2d 1214 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1982

Clearly the plain meaning of the contract called for the builder to “design and construct” the addition “in conformance with all current and applicable codes, rules, regulations and standards,” and it placed responsibility … Scatterday, Inc., supra, a “qualified builder,” Scatterday, agreed to design and construct a new building to adjoin an existing building in a “skillful, careful and workmanlike manner.”

Greer v. Buss

918 N.E.2d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2009

When the offender registry was established, Greer was notified that he would be required to register as a sex offender for a period of ten years after he was paroled. … Even more clearly does the ex post facto analysis apply to whether Maggi was required to register a second time.

Linton v. Davis

887 N.E.2d 960 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2008

The statute established the framework for pursuing medical malpractice claims in Indiana. … Number [2]: In 2000, Nurse [Prcevski] was qualified to start and stop Pitocin without a physician’s order.

Williams v. State

271 Ind. 476 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1979

One of the necessary steps in qualifying a photograph for introduction is to establish that it is a true and accurate representation of the person, place or thing which it purports to portray. New v. … The prejudicial and inflammatory impact upon the jury from this photograph clearly and decisively outweighed its relevance as a picture of a man who according to the testimony up to that time had entered a bar to have a drink