Case law

State ex rel. Cornwell v. Allen

21 Ind. 516 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1863

Allen, was duly elected Auditor of Vigo county, Indiana, in October, 1859; and that, after said election, he duly qualified, and entered upon the duties of the office, and continued to discharge the same till the 1st of August … If public policy should have anything to do in establishing the principle of decision touching the discharge of their duties by public officers, that policy would require that they *524 should be held to a strict, not a lax

Ketcham v. Hill

42 Ind. 64 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1873

The bill of exceptions was signed by Judge Park after he had ceased to be judge, and Judge LaRue had been qualified and was acting as such. … We are very clearly of the opinion that the court erred in permitting John F. Hill, the-assignor of the claim, to testify as a witness in behalf of the assignee. f- L. Mitchell and W. A. Ketcham, for appellant. Ni B.

Allen v. Proksch

832 N.E.2d 1080 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2005

Since that time, Father has tried to establish a relationship with [C.A.] but [C.A.] has resisted. 6. … Casserly to be well qualified and his testimony very helpful. 64. Dr.

City of Indianapolis v. Hicks ex rel. Richards

932 N.E.2d 227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2010

Thus, this Court has required that a written memorial must form the basis for establishing the error or omission to be corrected by the nune pro tune order. Cotton v. … Minnick, 663 N.E.2d 1226, 1228 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("A challenge to the mailing of notice is precluded when the docket clearly states that notice was mailed.").

State ex rel. Schrenker v. Superior Court

242 Ind. 171 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1961

That two (2) qualified physicians should be appointed to make an examination of this person alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous to the community. … It clearly appears from the record here that no finding was made by respondent, Superior Court of Madison County, that Phyllis Schrenker was an incompetent prior to the appointment of the temporary guardian.

In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury

854 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 10, 1994

Thus, even assuming the records in Exhibit C qualify as “new evidence” to trigger reconsideration of the prior order, rather than supporting the Government’s motion they defend the court’s decision in [Corporation] Grand … Presumably the Government expects the court to look at the sheet, notice the amount charged each patient, and conclude that the only way to establish overbilling occurred is to allow the Government to procure notes of counseling

Anderson v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 2022

Anderson’s information establishes that she is financially qualified to file without payment of the fee, but her complaint does not pass muster when subjected to the associated review of its merits. … (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

Pohl v. United Air Lines, Inc.

194 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2002

In Weigel , the court upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of the former employer on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she was a "qualified individual with a disability … Clearly, she had adequate personal knowledge on which to base the statements cited in this opinion.

Estate of Hutchinson v. Lehr

135 Ind. App. 137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1963

“the facts assumed are clearly so exaggerated as to impair the opinion of the witness.” 2. “the assumptions are misleading, confusing, and outside of the evidence or fair inference from the evidence.” 3. … “the witness has not been properly qualified to give an opinion on the subject matter covered 6. “the question assumes a multitude of facts which have no proper bearing upon a per-hour basis.”

Connie Duty, Coleen Grayson, and Frank Riffert v. The Estate of Hazel A. Geiselman (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2016

relating to their motions to consolidate and for emergency relief in the Amended Notice of 2 The trial court’s orders on Appellants’ motions to consolidate and for emergency relief did not qualify … As such, we conclude that Appellants have failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to correct error. IV.

Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana

982 N.E.2d 417 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2013

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997), reh’g denied. … Additionally, documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2019

Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial court’s determination that a witness is qualified to testify as an expert and render an expert opinion. Ross v. State, 665 N.E.2d 599 (Ind. Ct. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s 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

Oberst v. State

935 N.E.2d 1250 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2010

However, he did call Donita Farr, a Vincennes, Indiana, attorney who was qualified as a skilled witness, to testify regarding the applicable standards for defending clients in Indiana. … We accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. Oberst contends that his trial counsel was ineffective.

Gage Peters v. Dennis J Quakenbush, II

Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2025

The question before the United States Supreme Court was whether “the State a sex offender leaves—that is, the State where he formerly resided—qualifies as an ‘involved’ jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). … The Indiana Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that the “General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally

Babes Showclub v. Lair

901 N.E.2d 44 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2009

We decline to take the inconsistent position that public policy favors holding that the defendants have complete immunity based solely upon the plaintiff's occupation. … Clearly, these laws were enacted to protect the public in general, rather than police officers in particular. The Lairs cite Ray v.

Jethroe v. State

262 Ind. 505 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1974

The Court explained: “The ‘charge’ quite clearly is hearsay. Standing alone it is not admissible (unless it does happen to be a part of the res gestae). … I think if he wants to qualify Mr. Jethroe as an expert with regard to guns, but I don’t believe he has done so.

Sanford v. Castleton Health Care Center, LLC

813 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2004

Rather, an arbitration agreement merely establishes a forum for future disputes; both parties are bound to it and both parties receive whatever benefits and detriments accompany the arbitral forum. … Because the allegations asserted in Count I of the amended complaint would not have been justiciable, absent review of an arbitral award, during Bagley's lifetime, they clearly did not become justiciable upon her death.

Rene Ex Rel. Rene v. Reed

726 N.E.2d 808 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s “ ‘decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.’ ” Hefty v. … To have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, a party must establish that his or her rights were adversely affected by operation of both the statute and the particular section he is attacking.

Alexander v. City of Shelbyville

575 N.E.2d 1058 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1991

, Butler agreed to "provide qualified personnel to observe [Coffey's] work to determine compliance with the plans and Specifications". … The contract clearly put safety responsibility on Coffey.

Dale v. State

198 Ind. 110 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1926

The publication of the article here in question, if it be contemptuous, is clearly criminal in its nature. … The power of a court established by a constitution to take cognizance of contempts against it does not rest upon any act of the legislature.