Case law

Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Runge

717 N.E.2d 216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1999

McLeod are not being used to establish causation, but to establish the reasonableness and extent of the fear and emotional distress suffered by the Runges in being exposed to the excessive electric and magnetic fields on … Regardless of whether Smith is sufficiently qualified to offer expert opinions under Evid.

Gaddie v. Manlief

864 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2007

We will conclude that a trial court abused its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, or against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Also, evidence is not cumulative when the other evidence tending to prove the same facts is clearly not persuasive and therefore requires further support.

Jacob Weinberg News Agency, Inc. v. City of Marion

163 Ind. App. 181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1975

This attribute of his merchandise entitles his business to the qualified protection of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States. Bantam Books, Inc. v. … Affirmative relief shall be allowed under such remedy when the right thereto is established.

State v. Foy

862 N.E.2d 1219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2007

Hornick, 540 N.E.2d 1256 (suppression of evidence clearly erroneous because officers’ observations established probable cause). … State, 490 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind.1986) (witness qualified as trace evidence expert for purpose of comparing enlarged photo of defendant’s shoe with wound on victim’s head); Forrester v.

Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius

914 F. Supp. 2d 943 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 2012

At this preliminary stage, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have a reasonable likelihood of establishing that the mandate substantially burdens their practice of religion. … Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”).

Laney v. State

868 N.E.2d 561 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

Laney contends it is unclear what the State meant when it alleged that she “presented” K.F. to Plummer, as that word has no established legal meaning. … , for purposes of the limitation on consecutive sentencing for a single episode of criminal conduct found in Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-1, the defendant’s convictions for murder and aggravated battery as an accomplice qualified

Walker v. Hill

111 Ind. 223 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1887

It is true, perhaps, that the adjudication did not establish Rowley’s title; but it did establish conclusively that John Walker and the appellants, in so far as they claimed under John, had no such title to the real estate … Torbit was appointed and qualified as guardian of John and Thomas T. Walker, and, on the same day, Edward M. Sharp was appointed and qualified as guardian of Eleanor Baxter, then Walker.

YOUNG v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 6, 2023

Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because, among other things, IMPD is an improper party to this suit, Detective Kuchta-Drane is shielded by qualified immunity or law enforcement immunity, and Ms. … The Defendants seek summary judgment because, among other things, IMPD is an improper party, Detective Kuchta-Drane is shielded by qualified immunity or law enforcement immunity, and Ms.

Grassmyer v. State

429 N.E.2d 248 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1981

The appellant has failed to meet his initial burden of establishing the distinctiveness of the group. … The burden to show unconstitutionality is upon the challenging party, and he must show that the defects are clearly apparent. Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc., (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 585, 591 .

Sons v. City of Crown Point

691 N.E.2d 1237 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1998

The court has considerable latitude in devising procedures to ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction, and it is well established that in doing so it may consider not only the complaint and motion but any affidavits … Langbehn is clearly distinguishable and does not support the remonstrators’ argument. First, unlike the property owners in Langbehn , the remonstrators in the present ease did not file an action for declaratory relief.

Wallace v. Indiana Insurance

428 N.E.2d 1361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1981

The burden is on the movant for summary judgment to establish that no material facts are in genuine issue. … Clearly, Insurer did not waive its policy limitations regarding proof of loss and the time for bringing suits, and thus we hold. Issue III.

Jolena K. Plaut, Known Heir and Personal Representative of the Estate of Beulah Jane Enderle, a/k/a Beulah Jane Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2016

genuine issue of material fact that Wells Fargo was the holder of the Note entitled to enforce the loan documents. 13 Notwithstanding Plaut’s suggestions to the contrary, the Mortgage and Note were clearly … Once the mortgagee establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the mortgagor to show that the note has been paid in full or to establish any other defenses to the foreclosure. Id.

Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Butcher

863 N.E.2d 11 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2007

Consequently, the Fund must merely establish that the trial court committed prima facie error in order for us to reverse. Id. … In addition to establishing that the healthcare provider breached a duty, a plaintiff must also prove that the provider’s breach proximately caused a compensable injury. Hassan v.

Prevo v. City of Hammond

186 Ind. 612 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1917

This section provides that no such improvement shall be made unless authorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the municipality to be taken in accordance with the terms of the statute. … As to this appellants are clearly in error.

Elkins

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 30, 2026

Based on this information, Elkins financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. … Should Elkins file an amended complaint in this matter, the complaint must clearly explain the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, as well as the timeframe, facts, and legal basis for his claims; that is the who, what,

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

637 N.E.2d 1306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1994

To qualify for this assistance, a state must devise a scheme for reimbursing health care providers and have that plan approved by the Secretary of Health & Human Services. … Our review of the record convinces us that this factual determination is not clearly erroneous.

Enhanced Telecommunications Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

916 N.E.2d 313 · Indiana Tax Court · Nov 5, 2009

Because the distributions in this case are not legal settlements, they do not qualify as gross receipts pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-2.3-3-3. … Here, the distributions clearly do not meet the terms of this statute: they are not receipts received for maintenance services provided to a consumer that are directly related to the utility services of that consumer.

Reynolds/Herr v. State

582 N.E.2d 833 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1991

Whether a sufficient chain of custody was established to admit the cocaine into evidence. III. … The corpus delicti may be established, by circumstantial evidence. Id.

Shelby's Landing-II, Inc., Richard Deckard, Jr., Marilyn Deckard, and Deckard Realty & Development Co. v. PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Limited Partnership

65 N.E.3d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2016

The trial court’s findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. … However, the Defendants raised the same objection at trial, and the trial court admitted the affidavits on the basis that they qualified as certified business records, which are an exception to the prohibition

Pender v. United States

866 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 1994

Therefore, the statement would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule. Because both *1135 the first and second statements constitute admissible evidence, they will be considered. … In order to prevail, Consolidated must demonstrate that the “public or livery conveyance” exclusion clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage under the present facts. Allstate Ins. Co. v.