§

Dominguez v. Gallmeyer

402 N.E.2d 1295 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)
Dominguez v. Gallmeyer

27 Citing cases

  1. Goldman v. Fadell

    844 F.2d 1297 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Refusing to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, "or otherwise consider the weight of the evidence"

    The Indiana Court of Appeals has stated: "In reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the giving of an instruction, we may only look to that evidence most favorable to the appellee and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If there is any evidence to support the instruction, its giving is proper." Dominguez v. Gallmeyer, 402 N.E.2d 1295, 1300 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980). Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole to determine if they are appropriate to the evidence.

  2. Whisman v. Fawcett

    470 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 1984)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where plaintiff's brief on appeal contained no discussion of a particular issue, any error is deemed waived

    The application of preclusion always is viewed as a matter of judicial discretion. Eagle Motor Lines, Inc. v. Galloway, (1981) Ind. App., 426 N.E.2d 1322; Dominguez v. Gallmeyer, (1980) Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295. Moreover, our courts have expressed agreement with the principle expressed in 62 Am.Jur.2d Pretrial Conference § 29 at 661 (1972) that: "[a] pretrial order should be liberally construed to embrace all the legal and factual theories inherent in the issues defined therein.

  3. Mullins v. Bunch

    425 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 1981)   Cited 20 times
    In Mullins, the supreme court reversed this court's decision, which reversed a trial court's judgment on the basis that the trial court erred in refusing to give a tendered instruction.

    Likewise, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., (1980) Ind. App., 409 N.E.2d 1157, stated that an instruction composed of the complete text of Ind. Code § 9-4-1-34 (Burns 1980 Repl.) was "overinclusive" and "confusing" in view of the evidence. Similarly, in Dominguez v. Gallmeyer, (1980) Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, the Third District held the trial court had properly refused to give an instruction which embodied a motor vehicle statute inapplicable to the issues at hand. Accord, Ernst v. Sparacino, (1978) Ind. App., 380 N.E.2d 1271.

  4. Swan Lake v. Hiles

    888 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Holding jury instruction error waived because objection raised on appeal was different from objection raised at trial

    "Any error regarding an instruction is waived where grounds asserted on appeal differ from those stated in objections at trial." Babson Bros. Co. v. Tipstar Corp., 446 N.E.2d 11, 15 (Ind.Ct.App. 1983); Dominguez v. Gallmeyer, 402 N.E.2d 1295, 1300 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980). We conclude that Swan Lake has waived this argument.

  5. Underly v. Advance Mach. Co.

    605 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 31 times
    Defining reconstructive evidence as "evidence offered to recreate conditions substantially similar to those existing at the time of the issue being litigated"

    If there is any evidence to support the instruction, it was properly given. Antcliff v. Datzman (1982), Ind. App., 436 N.E.2d 114, 122 (citing Dominguez v. Gallmeyer (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295). Given that this standard of review is virtually identical to that applied in ISSUE I, supra, we incorporate our review of the facts from that portion of our opinion and hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's instruction.

  6. Ind. Mich. Elec. v. Terre Haute Indus

    507 N.E.2d 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 71 times
    Affirming judgment for plaintiff in breach of contract case; parties presented conflicting evidence as to who had breached the contract, but the evidence favorable to the trial court's judgment was sufficient to sustain the findings and conclusions

    If there is evidence of probative value which will support the judgment, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed. Michael v. Indiana Insurance Co. (1984), Ind. App., 469 N.E.2d 1222; Uebelhack Equipment, Inc. v. Garrett Bros. Inc. (1980), Ind. App., 408 N.E.2d 136; Dominguez v. Gallmeyer (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, trans. denied. ISSUE I: Choice of Law

  7. Andrews v. State

    505 N.E.2d 815 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that any question as to the applicability of good-time credit to a contempt sentence, which was fully served, is moot

    Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital (1981), Ind. App., 415 N.E.2d 737, 746; Dominguez v. Gallmeyer (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, 1298, trans. denied.

  8. Sanders v. Cole Mun. Finance

    489 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    In Sanders, the plaintiffs appealed the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial after the jury returned a verdict for $320,000.00, where the plaintiff's expert gave his opinion that the economic damages totalled over $860,000.

    TR. 15(B) also permits amendment to include issues not set forth in the pre-trial order. Dominguez v. Gallmeyer (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, 1299 ( trans denied). However, before a party may impliedly consent to the trial of an issue, he must receive some notice of that issue.

  9. Williams v. Graber

    485 N.E.2d 1369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 6 times

    In our review of the trial court's decision to permit or to deny modification, we are limited to the determination as to whether the trial court abused its discretion. Dominguez v. Gallmeyer (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, 1299; Colonial Mortgage Company of Indiana, Inc. v. Windmiller (1978), 176 Ind. App. 535, 376 N.E.2d 529. See also Whisman v. Fawcett (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 73, 76-7 (discussing the role of the pretrial order in the adjudicatory process).

  10. Bloomington Nat. Bank v. Goodman Dist

    482 N.E.2d 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    Rather, we look solely to the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, and it is only when this evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached a contrary conclusion that we will reverse that decision as being contrary to law. Dominguez v. Gallmeyer, (1980) Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 1295, trans. denied.