Case law

Weis v. City of Madison

75 Ind. 241 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1881

As clearly appears from the cases we have cited, the collection of the water into one channel, and causing it to flow upon another’s land, is an actionable injury. … We can not understand what benefit the appellant can reasonably expect from the facts which he assumes in his third proposition were established by the evidence.

MORGAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2026

Defendants argue that this allegation, even if true, fails to establish gross negligence, which requires more than ordinary negligence. (Dkt. 43 at 3). … This is the case except when the plaintiff alleges that the actions of the employee are "(1) criminal; (2) clearly outside the scope of the employee's employment; (3) malicious; (4) willful and wanton; or (5) calculated

Steinrock Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. McCulloch

965 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2012

Substantial evidence was presented at trial establishing that the contractor’s work was deficient in a number of respects. … The inquiry of whether Steinrock is still open made by McCulloch to Tara Hunter does not qualify as a defamatory statement. 24.

Joshua Walker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s judgment “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Id. … Walker contends this alleged inability to hire qualified employees made Duvall employees more susceptible to corruption.

Jermaine Thornton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Conley v. … Under Evidence Rule 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and “[o]nly one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert

Davis v. State

476 N.E.2d 127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1985

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court. … The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court.

Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Schuler

909 N.E.2d 1040 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2009

When a statement contains within it another statement, each layer of hearsay must qualify under an exception to the hearsay rule before the evidence at issue is admissible. Barger v. … As such, the trial court's determination that Irmscher and Pella breached the implied warranty of merchantability is not clearly erroneous.

In Re Estate of Grotrian

76 Ind. Dec. 331 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1980

As clearly established by the cases where the transferor retains a life estate in the property, the only interest succeeded to by the transferee upon the transferor's death is the present possessory interest. … These combined facts establish that Wilbur's "Class" is not relevant to this issue. To determine this tax liability under Class A rates and exemptions is clearly in violation of legislative intent.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.N., Minor Child and his Father, M.D.N. v. Indiana Department of Chiild Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2013

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … Rather, Father’s “sole argument on appeal is that mentally retarded parents should be immune from losing their parental rights.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13.

Gargula v. Miller (In re Bowyer)

489 B.R. 798 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2013

The conduct of Dennis Miller and Richard Kuhns toward each debtor has been clearly described, and it comports with the definition of a BPP. … Trustee established (without objection by the defendants) that in Mr.

State Ex Rel. Medical Licensing Board v. Brady

492 N.E.2d 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1986

The Board was required to establish only two elements in order to prevail on its petition. … The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression whether it takes the form of pure speech or conduct which is sufficiently communicative to qualify as symbolic speech. Spence v.

Gallagher v. Marion County Victim Advocate Program, Inc.

74 Ind. Dec. 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1980

But the legislature has not chosen to do more than authorize in general terms the Board of Public Safety to establish, regulate and operate a police system. §§ 48-6101, 48-6102, Burns’ 1933. … The Act is clearly not a mere codification of the common law, however. We consider the common law in this case only as an object of comparison. . See Wallace v.

ROBERTS v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2024

State sovereign immunity, however odd it appears in principle, see, e.g., Erwin Chemerinsky, Against Sovereign Immunity, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1201 (2001), is beyond this Court's power to reexamine. … Code §§ 33-33-49-13.1 (establishing "Marion County judicial selection committee"), 33-33-49-13.4 (providing for appointment by the Indiana governor of one judge from among three "most qualified candidates

Armstrong v. Cerestar USA, Inc.

775 N.E.2d 360 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2002

Indiana Evidence Rule 702 requires that an expert be qualified as such by his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. … Because Armstrong’s expert’s testimony submitted to establish causation failed to meet the Indiana Evidence Rule 702 admissibility test, there is no credible evidence that establishes that the sludge at issue as handled produced

Whedon v. State

900 N.E.2d 498 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2009

The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 643 (Ind.2008). … Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) provides: (a) 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 as an expert

Molargik v. West Enterprises, Inc.

605 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1993

Was the trial court's finding that dirt from the Molargiks' property caused 50% of West's damages clearly erroneous? … A judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings and conclusions.

Ziegler v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

797 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 21, 2003

The legislature established a similar procedure for those persons who seek the refund of taxes on a class-wide basis. … The standard of review for alleged violations of the Indiana Constitution is well established: a statute is presumed constitutional until the party challenging its constitutionality clearly overcomes the presumption by a

J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

4 N.E.3d 1158 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2014

Though it was “disappointed” that the CHINS court failed to appoint counsel for J.A. even though she qualified, it nev *1162 ertheless found the error to be harmless. Id. at 791 . … We note that the case law does not clearly define how sections 31-32-4-3 and 31-34-4-6 are to be read in conjunction with each other.

Milliner v. State

890 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2008

That conviction established Milliner as a sex offender and required that he register as such. … When does a cardboard box under a bridge qualify as a "home address?" A park bench? What about a pile of rags next to a trash bin?

Noyes v. Guy

2 Indian Terr. 205 · Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · Jan 12, 1899

Such agreement may be established by direct evidence, or implied by you from circumstantial evidence, if *210 the same' clearly satisfies you of the existence of the agreement. … If the evidence fails to establish either such posssession by the assignee, or such agreement, then you should find this issue for the in-terpleader.