factually unchallenged affirmative defense in Indiana

2020Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. 1999).

2015Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind.1999).

2018Id.

2018Id.

1999Carroll by Carroll v. Jagoe Homes, Inc. , 677 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (citing Moore v. Sitzmark Corp. , 555 N.E.2d 1305, 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)).

1999Carroll by Carroll v. Jagoe Homes, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (citing Moore v. Sitzmark Corp., 555 N.E.2d 1305, 1307 (Ind.Ct.App.1990)).

2009Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Runge, 717 N.E.2d 216, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

2009Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Runge, 717 N.E.2d 216, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

1999Carroll by Carroll v. Jagoe Homes, Inc. , 677 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (citing Moore v. Sitzmark Corp. , 555 N.E.2d 1305, 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)).

1999“When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiffs cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense which bars the plaintiffs claim.” Carroll by Carroll v. Jagoe Homes, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 612, 615 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied.

2024Id. at 665-66 . [9] “When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim.” Sheets v. Birky, 54 N.E.3d 1064, 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

2020TCGC made no affirmative defense arguments in its summary judgment motion, and even if it had, it would have been TCGC’s burden to show that it had a “factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim.” See Sheets v. Birky, 54 N.E.3d 1064, 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (explaining that when a defendant is the moving party in a summary judgment proceeding, the defendant has the burden of showing either that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the

2015Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712, 717 (Ind.1997). .Where, as here, the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must demonstrate that the Undisputed facts negate at least one element 'of the plaintiffs cause' of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiffs claim.- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 750 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). 1.

2005Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 750 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

2013See id.

2013Id.

2023Leo Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 855, 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), aff’d on rehearing, 940 N.E.2d 384 (2011).

2020Id. at 397 (quotation omitted). [14] When the moving party is the defendant, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim.

2017Diversified Invs., LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA, 838 N.E.2d 536, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. [20] Where, as here, the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim.

2017Skyline Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., 26 N.E.3d 1024, 1028-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

2016Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1269-70 (Ind.2009) (internal citations omitted). [11] When the defendant’is the moving ‘party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiffs cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiffs claim.

2015Therefore, “we treat the judgment as a general one merely supported by [a] partial finding! ] and will affirm on any theory.” Booker, Inc. v. Morrill, 639 N.E.2d 358, 361 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). [13] Where;’ as' here, the defendant is the party moving for summary judgment, “the défendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiffs cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiffs claim.” Pierson ex rel.

2015Therefore, “we treat Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 32A01-1504-CT-144 | November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 24 the judgment as a general one merely supported by [a] partial finding[] and will affirm on any theory.” Booker, Inc. v. Morrill, 639 N.E.2d 358, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). [13] Where, as here, the defendant is the party moving for summary judgment, “the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim.” Pierson ex rel.

2015Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712, 717 (Ind.1997). .Where, as here, the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must demonstrate that the Undisputed facts negate at least one element 'of the plaintiffs cause' of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiffs claim.- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 750 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). 1.

2015When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant must show that the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or that the defendant has a factually unchallenged affirmative defense that bars the plaintiff’s claim. 3 Appellees included the transcript of the summary judgment hearing and a subsequent hearing in their appendix in contravention of Indiana Appellate Rule 50(F), which states, “Because the Transcript is transmitted to the Court on Appeal pursuant to Rule 12(B), parties should not reproduce any portion of the Transcript in the Appendix.” Court

2015Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind.1999). [11] “Just as the trial court does, we resolve all questions and view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, so as to not improperly deny him his day in court.” Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 1257, 1259 (Ind.2014) (internal citations omitted).

1999Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

1999Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), reh’g denied, trans. denied.