Case law

Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.

434 N.E.2d 943 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 1982

We therefore conclude the Hahns fail to establish the Lorey disclaimer was inadmissible as a matter of law. … Acceptance of the goods clearly precludes buyer from asserting rejection as a defense.

Leever v. Leever

919 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2009

We have little trouble considering that the constructive trust's real estate in this case qualifies as a "presently fixed right to future enjoyment." Id. … The trial court, in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, concluded very clearly that "5.

Ybarra v. Wexford of Indiana LLC Director

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2025

Ybarra states that the x-ray images “clearly show” two foreign bodies, he has not provided any evidence to contradict the radiologists’ conclusions that both x-rays came back negative. … He cannot now qualify for equitable tolling to raise these claims late. Though the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, “a plaintiff can plead himself out of court.

Burks-Bey v. Stevenson

328 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2004

the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … This search clearly did not single out Muslims since it was both over and under inclusive of that group. Mr.

Wyman v. Larner

624 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 3, 1985

Lamer’s Motion for Summary Judgment The standards governing a motion for summary judgment are well-established. … The case law clearly supports this Court’s finding that Indiana is Leah’s home state. Leah was born in Indiana and has continuously lived in the state since her birth.

Irwin R. Evens & Son, Inc. v. Board of the Indianapolis Airport Authority

584 N.E.2d 576 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1992

Thus, we hold that the trial court’s construction of the contract in Electric’s favor with respect to this issue was not clearly erroneous. Time raises another issue. … However, we also observe that Time does not establish that the contract had been fully performed before Airport and Electric filed their brief or preliminary petitions.

Jarrett v. State

804 N.E.2d 807 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2004

It establishes conditions for sentencing and commitment to the Department of Correction. I.C. 85-38-1. … Clearly, Denise qualified as an individual who was due protection under the CPOA. That a proper petition was not filed in this case as required by the CPOA is concerning.

Hammond v. GRAOCH ASSOCIATES NO. 52, LP

909 N.E.2d 1086 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2009

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … First, the decision must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed

Graham v. State

736 N.E.2d 822 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2000

Clearly, Graham failed to comply with the procedural mandate of Evid. R. 412(b). … Clearly, whether D.G. was a rebellious child has no bearing on whether she was raped by Graham. The trial court properly sustained the objection. We find no abuse of discretion.

Componx, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

741 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2000

An established rule of statutory construction holds that where provisions of a statute conflict, the specific provision takes priority over the general provision. Robinson v. Wroblewski, 704 N.E.2d 467, 475 (Ind.1998). … Instructional Bulletin 92-1 utilizes Schedule C and the regulations clearly state that Schedule C “shows the cost of the interior and mechanical components included in the base rate (to facilitate deduction from the base

Byrne v. Turner

139 Ind. App. 676 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1965

The evidence in the record clearly shows a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether appellant was or was not crossing within an unmarked crosswalk, thus presenting a question for jury determination. … This being the case, the instruction is required to set out all the elements essential to a recovery, and directs the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff if the jury find such elements to have been established.

Kirkpatrick v. City of Greensburg

113 Ind. App. 402 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1943

Butler were the duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the board of trustees of the Greensburg Municipal Water Works, and, as such trustees, have had control and management of the water works system since the 23rd … It clearly intended to do so, and the city was free to follow the method provided by either act.” Hamilton v. Public Service Commission, supra.

Moore v. Parke

968 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 1997

Thus, this court must determine whether the state court’s reliance on Weatherford qualifies as an adequate and independent state ground to warrant a finding of procedural default. 1 As a general rule, federal district courts … Again, a careful review of the record in this case clearly shows that Moore has failed to sufficiently establish that a finding of procedural default on these claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice in

State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Hauser

63 Ind. 155 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1878

In this clause 26 of section 53 of such general law, it is provided that the common council of an}*- such city shall have the power to enfoi’ce ordinances, “To construct aud establish works for furnishing the city with wholesome … We are clearly of the opinion, that the fourth paragraph of the appellant’s complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the appellees or either of them. 2.

Martin v. Monsanto Company

166 Ind. App. 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1975

The plaintiff has not established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that his back condition, as diagnosed by Dr. … Bearing the burden of proof, he presented testi *16 mony of two qualified physicians each of whom directly or indirectly concluded that his traumatic neurosis was a result of the accident.

Indiana Department of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Goodrich

439 N.E.2d 1155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1982

Goodrich died on October 25, 1973, leaving the majority of his vast estate to three existing private foundations he had previously established—Liberty Fund, Inc., (established 1960); Thirty-Five Twenty, Inc., (established … 1965); and The Winchester Foundation (established 1945).

Burd Management, LLC v. State

805 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2004

The eminent domain act and its case law clearly mandate that the State is required to make a good faith effort to *1278 purchase as a condition precedent to filing a condemnation action. … if raised, of whether a good faith offer was *1280 made may customarily be disposed of by the State by a request for summary judgment accompanied by an affidavit representing that the offer was based on an appraisal by a qualified

John W. Thomas v. State of Indiana

61 N.E.3d 1198 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2016

as a means of establishing specific intent for crimes such as attempted murder.” … Appellant’s Br. at 10; see also Reply Br. at 4 (“Clearly Thomas [] established that he was intoxicated; otherwise, the trial court would not have found it necessary to instruct the jury that it could not consider

Sunman-Dearborn Community School Corp. v. Kral-Zepf-Freitag & Associates

167 Ind. App. 339 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1975

The contract here in question clearly designates as a party the North Dearborn Elementary School Building Corporation, as opposed to the respective school townships. … Further, two of the three township trustees executing the contract qualified their signatures indicating their capacities as officers of the building corporation. *344 Krai, however, insists that the trustees signed not as

STATE, PRR CO. v. Iroq. Cons. Dist. Ct.

235 Ind. 353 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1956

"The court thus established shall have power and authority to establish conservancy districts when the conditions stated in section 4 of this act are found to exist. … This language is clearly applicable to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.