Prange v. Martin

40 Citing cases

  1. Landis v. Landis

    664 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 25 times
    Holding jury did not abuse its discretion in setting victim's wrongful discharge damages at over two million dollars based upon seventeen years of expected future employment

    Moreover, appellate courts must not substitute their idea of a proper damage award for that of the jury. Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), reh'g denied trans. denied.

  2. London Witte Grp. v. City of Marion

    222 N.E.3d 301 (Ind. App. 2023)

    "Damages are particularly a jury determination." Prange v. Martin , 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. "No particular degree of mathematical certainty is required in awarding damages."

  3. Husainy v. Granite Mgmt.

    132 N.E.3d 486 (Ind. App. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "a jury could reasonably find that Granite did not remedy the lack of hot running water within a reasonable amount of time" where tenants were without hot water for more than fourteen days

    [13] "Damages are particularly a jury determination." Prange v. Martin , 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied . "No particular degree of mathematical certainty is required in awarding damages." Greives v. Greenwood , 550 N.E.2d 334, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).

  4. Tipmont Rural Elec. Membership v. Fischer

    697 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that a party claiming error in the giving of an instruction is limited to his stated objection at trial

    Waiver notwithstanding, we do not agree that the award was excessive or beyond the scope of the evidence. Damages are particularly a jury determination. Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We will not substitute our idea of a proper damage award for that of the jury.

  5. Manzo v. Estep

    689 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that plaintiff, who brought action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in rear-end collision, was entitled to a new trial where expenses for treatment immediately following accident were undisputed, but jury awarded plaintiff no damages

    Moreover, we must not substitute our idea of a proper award for that of the jury. Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

  6. Siegel v. Tomion

    No. 20A-CT-173 (Ind. App. Dec. 9, 2020)

    "Appellate courts will not substitute their idea of a proper damage award for that of the jury." Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453, 462 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), reh'g denied, trans. denied). "We will not deem a verdict to be the result of improper considerations unless it cannot be explained on any other reasonable ground."

  7. Liter's of Ind., Inc. v. Bennett

    51 N.E.3d 285 (Ind. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Holding permanent injunction should be entered requiring landowner to remove portion of roof that extended over neighbor's property

    Therefore, we do not substitute our “idea of a proper damage award for that of the jury.” Id. (quoting Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied ). Because appellate courts are unable “to actually look into the minds of the jurors, ....we will not reverse if the award falls within the bounds of the evidence.

  8. Neher v. Hobbs

    752 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, we must not substitute our idea of a proper award for that of the jury. Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied. Further, we will not reverse a damage award so long as the damages are within the scope of the evidence.

  9. Centennial Mortage, Inc. v. Blumenfeld

    745 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 61 times
    Holding third-party beneficiary status where third-party was involved in every aspect of the formation of the contract and contracting parties knew that third-party was the guarantor of the irrevocable line of credit at issue

    In addition, we must not substitute our idea of a proper award for that of the jury. Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied.

  10. Genesys Cloud Servs. v. Talkdesk, Inc.

    1:19-cv-00695-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind. Sep. 25, 2024)

    Sears Roebuck & Co., 742 N.E.2d at 462 (emphasis added) (quoting Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (citations omitted)). The Indiana Supreme Court has further noted: