Case law

Loper v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY

138 Ind. App. 84 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1965

On the contrary, the uniform trend of the decisions in Indiana clearly upholds the right of freedom of contract, guaranteed by both the Federal and State Constitutions . . . … Gargaro Co., Inc., supra, to be the established rule of law in Indiana.”

Christopher B. Elliott v. First String Products LLC, First String USA, and Firstring LLC (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2019

A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn … As a result, Elliott did not put forth any admissible expert witness evidence to establish a dispute of material fact as to causation.

David McCollough v. Noblesville Schools and Jeff Bryant

63 N.E.3d 334 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2016

[16] We agree with the Defendants that even accepting the facts as presented by McCollough, we cannot say that the Defendants’ conduct, even if intentional, qualifies as being so outrageous in character … that wife’s actions were deliberate and extreme and outrageous for purposes of establishing an IIED claim), trans. denied.

Norton v. State

273 Ind. 635 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1980

Appellant now asserts that Heck was not qualified to express an opinion on this question. … Clearly, there has been no showing that the jury’s behavior here constituted gross misconduct.

Ford v. State

112 Ind. 373 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1887

Indulging that presumption, and acting upon that rule, it must be held that it sufficientfy appears from the record here that the indictment was found and returned by a legal and duly qualified grand jury. … It was clearly erroneous. James Ford, an uncle of appellant, and father of James T. Ford, jointly indicted with appellant, was a witness for appellant.

Dakota J. Horn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. … For a witness to be qualified as an expert, two requirements must be met. Schaefer v. State, 750 N.E.2d 787, 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

Wheatley v. American United Life Insurance Co.

792 N.E.2d 927 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2003

Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not clearly erroneous, we affirm. … establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review” of the benefit determination.

Glick v. United States

96 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2000

Summary Judgment Standards. 1 The legal standards for summary judgment are weE established. … Although not clearly applicable to the present transaction, the regulations define the stated redemption price at maturity as the "sum of all payments provided by the debt instrument other than qualified stated interest payments

Hawkins v. City of Greenfield

248 Ind. 593 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1967

Perhaps we should preface our remarks by stating that we think it to be incumbent upon us to follow logical and substantial precedents and trends already established in our State. … The presumption being in, favor of the legislative declaration, yet not conclusive, the courts will treat the decision of the Legislature with consideration, and will not interfere therewith unless the use is clearly and

Haskett v. State

255 Ind. 206 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1970

Clearly the United States Supreme Court has not purported to so hold. In Re Gault, supra ; Re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 . I believe and I feel have demonstrated ( Bible v. … Statutes granting immunity where testimony is compelled, as before a grand jury, etc., have consistently been upheld and should be in this case.

Storer v. Carney

73 Ind. App. 415 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1920

Carney qualified as executrix and as such was made a party defendant to said action. … The legislature by the passage of said section clearly intended to change the former rule so that an estate might have the benefit of assets omitted in the former administration, although there had been a previous final settlement

Blaske v. Bowen

437 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 1976

Therefore, the plaintiffs allege that the tax violates the privileges and immunities guarantees of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. … This Court believes that the above procedure clearly serves as a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1341 .

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Harbor Bay v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2013

Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause imposes two requirements[.]” … Clearly, however, Tavern Owners’ petition for relief is not targeted toward expanding the ban such that riverboat patrons are free of second-hand smoke.

Uniden America Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

718 N.E.2d 821 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 6, 1999

Further, “[i]t is a well established rule of statutory construction that words and phrases shall be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning.” Koufos v. … Finally, “[t]o authorize a collection of gross income tax, a transaction must come clearly within the relevant statutory provisions.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Pure Air on Lake Ltd., Partnership

154 F.R.D. 202 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 1993

As Pure Ar notes, not one party to this litigation has specifically identified and established a critical need for any of the information which might be contained in the Packer report, and which is not now available from … Thus, in the context of work product immunity, and observed in 8 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.

Martin v. State

251 Ind. 587 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1969

Appellant's second contention is that the trial judge was guilty of a manifest abuse of discretion in qualifying Wilma Jean Haley, age five, as a competent witness to testify in this case. … At no time during the testimony of this five-year-old was it established that she understood the consequences of not telling the truth while under oath.

Young v. Schmucker

409 B.R. 477 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2008

If it does, then the bankruptcy court must be reversed, and the appellants must go forward with establishing the remaining elements. … buggy qualifies as a “vessel.”

Bishop v. State ex rel. Griner

39 L.R.A. 278 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1898

Bishop, at the November election of 1894, was elected township trustee of Bear creek township, in Jay county, Indiana, for a term of four years, and that on the 6th day of August, 1895, he duly qualified as such trustee, … The information under this provision of the code must state facts sufficient to show clearly a forfeiture of the office in controversy. Chambers v. State, 127 Ind. 365 , 11 L. R.

Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley Thoraco-Vascular Corp. v. Blatchford

900 N.E.2d 786 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

They were also elected and qualified to serve on MRSD's board of directors. The stock purchase agreement also contained a non-competition clause. … Long also stated that Blatchford is uniquely qualified to render the care he would need in such *798 an emergency. (Appellees App. pp. 227-83). e Dr.

Kevin Heckel v. Tammy Heckel (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2019

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom that support it.” Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Buse v. … “In other words, ‘[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and 2 Husband asserts that “[t]he trial court’s Findings specifically include each of these pre-marital assets