Case law

State v. Fromme

930 N.E.2d 1169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2010

Indiana Code § 35-87-6-9, which establishes the viectim-advocate privilege, has never been interpreted. … About a year later, the legislature responded by enacting a statute establishing a viectim-sexual assault counselor privilege.

Shoaf v. Livengood

172 Ind. 707 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1909

Since March 29,1907, appellant has been the duly appointed and qualified guardian of the estate of said infant. The father and mother of the latter are dead. … In the latter month the father married and established a home of his own, and took said child to his home and kept him until a short time prior to December 3, 1907.

Matheney v. Anderson

60 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 1999

Under the AEDPA, this court can only grant relief on this issue if it finds that the decision of the state court was an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the … The question is thus whether the Supreme Court of Indiana’s decision on the evidentiary question was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In Chambers v.

Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt

810 N.E.2d 1028 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2004

We will not disturb the trial court's findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous if

Studebaker v. United States

195 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1961

In 1930 the Treasury’s established interpretation of the statute was reversed by the Supreme Court’s decision in May v. Heiner, supra. … They demonstrate clearly the intention on the part of the members of the Senate to associate May v. Heiner with irrevocable transfers only.

Podgorny v. Great Central Insurance Co.

160 Ind. App. 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 1974

The assertion of conclusions of law or opinions by one not qualified to testify to such, by affidavit, will not suffice. Renn v. Davidson’s Southport Lumber Co., Inc. (1973), 157 Ind. … On trial, where the evidence can be weighed, the presumption casts upon Podgorny the burden of clearly establishing the asserted lack of jurisdiction.

Cassidy v. INDIANA STATE BD. OF REGIS., ETC.

244 Ind. 137 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1963

"That by the use of signs and a newspaper advertisement in the November 31, 1960 issue of the Chesterton Tribune and the October 31, 1960 issue of the Portage News, Plaintiff held himself out as qualified for the practice … But can it be said that a lawyer, whose office space adjoins the offices of a bank or loan association which advertises its business, with most of his business *149 being related to that establishment, is thereby guilty of

Sullivan v. City of Evansville

728 N.E.2d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2000

The Commissioner was acting as judge, a duty he clearly may assume under the statute if his appointment is procedurally correct. … Clearly, as the supreme court *190 concluded in Floyd v.

Barbara L. Mack (individually) and Barbara L. Mack, Grandmother/Custodian and Next Friend of Jaylan N. Brown, a minor child v. Christine A. Amiott, Harold S. Burchfield (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2015

Although insurers may limit coverage, “such limitations must be clearly expressed to be enforceable.” State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. … If she was a covered Insured under Coroy’s Safe Auto policy on the date of the accident, Mack qualified for uninsured motorists coverage under the policy terms once Safe Auto denied coverage under

Cundiff v. Schmitt Development Co.

649 N.E.2d 1063 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1995

In deciding whether to grant an application for primary plat approval under this scheme, the Commission is required to "determine if the plat or subdivision qualifies for primary approval under the standards pre-seribed by … The record clearly demonstrates that the Commission did not vote to adopt any written findings of fact, as an administrative body, at its October meeting.

County Department of Public Welfare v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Indiana Council 62

416 N.E.2d 153 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1981

The agreement established a wage plan and other terms of employment for police officers. … The absence of such clearly defined authority often leads to frustration and instability in labor relations.” (Footnotes omitted.)

S.C.S. v. B.R.A.

645 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1995

S.B.A. was born out of wedlock to Mother and Father on May 4, 1983. 1 Father filed a petition to establish the paternity of S.B.A. on April 8, 1992. … Specifically, Petitioner's isolated purchase of ice capade ticket, and school books and gifts to child of clothing do not qualify as significant support of child. Record, p. 477. .

Centman v. Cobb

581 N.E.2d 1286 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1991

Garner qualified as a "physician" under the Medical Malpractice Act because each held a temporary medical permit and not an unlimited license to practice medicine. … The Ohio court appears to have retreated from its decision in Rush to the position we establish today in this decision. Dr. Cobb and Dr.

Hodgkins v. Peterson

175 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 6, 2001

The court said: “The law has been clearly established since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Carroll v. … The court held therefore that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Nazon

936 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1996

The text of Gaudin clearly indicates that it is based specifically on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. — U.S. at-, -, 115 S.Ct. at 2313-14, 2318-20 . Lower courts have viewed Gaudin as a constitutional decision. … See Jones, 76 F.3d at 854 (noting that although the basic right to counsel might have qualified for the second exception not all subsequent refinements of the right would do so).

Koo v. State

640 N.E.2d 95 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1994

The trial court clearly erred in admitting the testimony of M.K. and S.P. … To the contrary, she clearly testified she never made the allegation although clinic personnel may have interpreted it as such.

Robert Holland, The Law Firm of Robert M. Holland III, and Holland Real Estate, LLC v. Lake County Sheriff's Department (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2019

App. 1996) (“A challenge to the mailing of notice is precluded when the docket clearly states that notice was mailed.”)), trans. denied. … The ITCA provides substantial immunity for conduct within the scope of a public employee’s employment to ensure that public employees can exercise the independent judgment necessary to carry out their

M.H. v. C.R.

918 N.E.2d 736 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

Moreover, it was established that S.A.' … We therefore hold the Department's power to withhold consent to adoption, regardless of the means by which the Department obtained eustody, is qualified by 1C 31-3-1-6(g), allowing the trial court to dispense with the consent

Pink A. Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2019

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 … This is sufficient evidence to establish that Robinson participated in the store robbery. See Curtis v. State, 42 N.E.3d 529 (Ind. Ct.

Boyd v. State

72 Ind. Dec. 523 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1979

Furthermore, Boyd’s allegation of constitutional violations has not established a ground for reversal. First of all, Boyd failed to present any kind of constitutional analysis to support his allegation. … Such abuse of discretion will only be found “if the court makes an erroneous conclusion that is clearly against logic and the natural inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Merry v.