Case law

In re the Change to the Established Water Level of Lake of the Woods

822 N.E.2d 1032 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2005

The two (2) viewers appointed by the court: (1) must be reputable freeholders; (2) may not be qualified to sign the petitions; (8) may not be related to an affected landowner; and (4) must be residents of a county in which … reviewing court, and the decision should be reversed only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

James E. Whitfield, M.D. and St. Joseph Primary Care, LLC v. Jerry Wren, Individually and As Personal Representative of The Wrongful Death Estate of Leslie Wren

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2014

extent that the parties’ arguments require us to interpret sections of the Medical Malpractice Act (the “Act”), we note that the first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly … to summary judgment as a matter of law unless the plaintiff can establish, by expert testimony, a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.M. & M.M. (minor children) and M.M. (mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2015

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED : that all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations, any rights to custody, parenting time or support, pertaining … A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id.

Ebert v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company

158 Ind. App. 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1973

Any limited or qualified interest or any expectancy of advantage is sufficient. Parks v. Federal Crops Insurance Corporation (7th Cir. 1969), 416 F. 2d 833 ; 4 APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE § 2123 (1969) ; 43 Am. … Any finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. V.

City of Gary v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

967 N.E.2d 1053 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2012

The "and" between (A) and (B) clearly reflects that for such discharges for which a new permit limit would be required both (A) and (B) will apply. … relief from an administrative decision only if the agency action is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Matthew P. Apodaca v. ERA First Advantage Realty, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2020

We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard and thus defer to the trial court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility. Branham v. … “As a general rule, an express condition must be fulfilled or no liability can arise on the promise that the condition qualifies.” Id.

Hawkins v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co.

608 N.E.2d 1358 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1993

We now hold that the majority of jurisdictions in the United States, including the Federal Rules of Evidence and our own legislature, has established a more reasonable rule in this field. … I foresee tort litigants attempting to persuade prosecutors and defense counsel to burden criminal trials with additional testimony, witnesses, and exhibits, so that such evidence may later be presented, possibly immune from

Small Business in Transportation Coalition v. Indiana Department of Revenue

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2020

state, within three years of the enactment of the UCR Act, submits to the Secretary a plan: (A) identifying the State agency that has or will have the legal authority, resources, and qualified … failure to state a claim; 4) a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties; and 5) a motion for summary judgment based on lack of notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act or sovereign immunity

Bishop v. Indiana Dept of Correction

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 2021

Further factual development may establish that Grams and Colvill’s actions fit into those scenarios. … Williams, 682 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2012) (“The Eleventh Amendment provides states with immunity from suits in the federal courts unless the State consents to the suit or Congress has abrogated their immunity.”).

City of Terre Haute v. Kersey

159 Ind. 300 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1902

it deprives them of the free use of their property, and of the free use of the public streets of said city, in contravention of §§1, 21, and 23 of article 1 of the State’s Constitution; (2) that it grants privileges and immunities … When such power is, however, clearly conferred upon such municipalities, courts have generally upheld the proper exercise thereof.

Hammock v. Red Gold, Inc.

784 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2003

He concluded that at that time, and even post-Webb, "Indiana tort law is presently a confused patchwork of obligation and immunity." Id. … This failure is clearly understandable in light of the fact that the Indiana appellate courts have also failed to do so. With Goldsberry the line of demarcation was drawn.

Short v. Texaco, Inc.

273 Ind. 518 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1980

To justify the Courts in declaring an act void, it must be clearly subversive of that instrument. … This statement in context gave support to the court’s ruling that the power of eminent domain cannot serve as a source of immunity from suits for damages for injury to private property.

Charles R. Whitlock v. Steel Dynamics, Inc.

35 N.E.3d 265 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

His lack of movement was on account of the head injury and the headaches and the pain After the accident I would say that for the first 2 to 3 weeks he was clearly disabled, then he started getting up and moving around and … When the moving party asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the nonmov-ant to establish an issue of fact

Henley v. State

855 N.E.2d 1018 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2006

To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must establish the two components set forth in Strickland v. … This issue was also clearly stronger than the other issues in the appellate brief.

Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

550 N.E.2d 850 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 20, 1990

Whether the Church qualifies for an exemption under IC 6-1.1-10-16(d). … It is well established that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed in favor of the tax, and the burden is upon the one claiming exemption to show that the property clearly falls within the

Kopczynski v. Barger

870 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2007

To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach of duty proximately caused the injury. … Therefore, this does not qualify as a situation where the child was unable to appreciate the danger of the situation.

Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Campos

582 N.E.2d 865 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1991

The well-established purpose of this statute ‘... is to afford the same protection to a person injured by the uninsured motorist as he would have enjoyed if the offending motorist had himself carried liability insurance.’ … forth in the emphasized portions of the applicable statute, Indiana’s uninsured motorist statute requires that all carriers such as Defendant herein provide uninsured motorist coverage to all persons who would otherwise qualify

Edward Gaeta v. The Huntington National Bank (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2019

As a general rule, a condition precedent must be fulfilled, or no liability can arise on the promise that the condition qualifies. L.H. Controls, Inc. v. … Gaeta’s failure to pay the loan secured by the mortgage was clearly established. And the failure to comply with the HUD regulations is an affirmative defense to foreclosure.

CVS Corporation v. Monroe County Assessor

83 N.E.3d 1286 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 29, 2017

This Court’s precedent does not require the Indiana Board to choose one appraisal report’s opinion of value over another’s opinion of value, but instead allows valuations established by an appraisal report to be adjusted … Moreover, the Indiana Board abuses its discretion if its final determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case before it or if it contrary to the law.

Neudecker v. Neudecker

566 N.E.2d 557 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1991

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS — Rolland says the evidence was insufficient to establish that his failure to pay his child support obligation was willful, and therefore the evidence was insufficient to establish he was in contempt … App., 441 N.E.2d 711 (immunity does not exist as to non-custodial parent).