Cowper v. Collier

11 Citing cases

  1. John Collier Logging, Inc. v. Mahvash-K. LLC

    178 N.E.3d 850 (Ind. App. 2021)

    The Department of Natural Resources is not involved in this case. Cf.Cowper v. Collier , 720 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (case against timber buyer held before an administrative law judge), reh'g denied , trans. denied. Karimi does not argue she has a private cause of action to enforce the provisions in Indiana Code chapter 25-36.5-1.

  2. John Collier Logging, Inc. v. Mahvash-K. LLC

    No. 21A-CT-954 (Ind. App. Dec. 2, 2021)

    The Department of Natural Resources is not involved in this case. Cf. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (case against timber buyer held before an administrative law judge), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Karimi does not argue she has a private cause of action to enforce the provisions in Indiana Code chapter 25-36.5-1.

  3. Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Associates, Inc.

    780 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 27 times

    Further, Indiana has long allowed contracting parties to enter into any agreement they desire so long as it is not illegal or against public policy. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). When reviewing a contract on appeal, our standard of review is also well settled. If the language of the instrument is unambiguous, the intent of the parties is determined from its four corners.

  4. Northern Ind. Public Serv. v. U.S. Steel

    907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that appellate courts may review agency orders for "the logic of inferences drawn and any rule of law that may drive the result"

    NIPSCO advocates that we apply a de novo standard because the case involves summary judgment and a question of law. (Appellant's Br. at 7-8.) It cites two recent Court of Appeals opinions reviewing decisions of the Commission de novo: Ind. Bell Tel. Co. v. Time Warner Commc'ns of Ind., LP., 786904 N.E.2d 301 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), and Cowper v. Collier, 720904 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), trans. denied, 735904 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. 2000). (Opposition to Transfer at 6-7.)

  5. Northern v. U.S. Steel

    881 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    The Cowper Court stated that "the law is the province of the judiciary and the reviewing court is not bound by an agency's conclusions of law" and "the parties' contract dispute was not a matter requiring the weighing of extrinsic evidence but rather was contained by its four corners, the interpretation and construction of which is a function for the court." Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255-56 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (citations omitted), trans. denied? Here, the IURC was explicit that it made its decision as a matter of law, employing only principles of contract interpretation.

  6. Kiel Brothers Oil Co. v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

    819 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Rather, the law is the province of the judiciary. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

  7. Humphries v. Ables, No

    789 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that when a contract term provides that attorney fees are recoverable, appellate attorney fees may also be awarded

    As a general rule, the law allows persons of full age and competent understanding the utmost liberty in contracting. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), trans. denied.

  8. Huffman v. Dept. of Environ

    788 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    The law is the province of the judiciary. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied. I. "Aggrieved or Adversely Affected" for Administrative Review

  9. Mapco Coal Inc. v. Godwin

    786 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times

    This type of determination is particularly suited for a trial court, not a jury. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 779 N.E.2d 62, 66 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) ("[i]nterpretation of the language in a contract is a question of law especially suited for summary judgment proceedings"); Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) ("[i]t is only where a contract is ambiguous and its interpretation requires extrinsic evidence that the fact finder must determine the facts upon which the contract rests"), trans. denied.

  10. Ind. Bell Tel. Co. v. Time Warner

    786 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    Ameritech asks us to review the IURC's decision de novo, because it concerned the interpretation of a contract and thus addressed a pure question of law requiring no deference to the administrative agency. See Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999),trans. denied (2000).