Scott motion in Indiana

2016This argument was rejected by our supreme court in Robertson v. State, 871 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2009).

2007Jane cites Batterman v. Bender, 809 N.E.2d 410 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) where this court held that the father’s objection to the court order of support two weeks after judgment and failure to file a worksheet in the specified time, precluded his claim of error.

2002In Middleton , our supreme court based its decision on the same principle. 714 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind.1999).

1990Consequently, the trial court correctly denominated Scott's claim as one sounding in tort ...[.]" Scott v. Union Tank Car Co. (1980), Ind.App., 402 N.E.2d 992, 993 .

1990Consequently, the trial court correctly denominated Scott's claim as one sounding in tort ... [.]" Scott v. Union Tank Car Co. (1980), Ind. App., 402 N.E.2d 992, 993 .

1984First, the application of the speedy trial balancing test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, (1972) 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 , requires an affirmance of the trial court’s denial of Scott’s motion to dismiss 1 because there is no legal basis for altering the well-settled principle that the defendant must bear the burden of proof of any prejudice accruing to his defense.

1984First, the application of the speedy trial balancing test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, (1972) 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 , requires an affirmance of the trial court’s denial of Scott’s motion to dismiss 1 because there is no legal basis for altering the well-settled principle that the defendant must bear the burden of proof of any prejudice accruing to his defense.

1977Gradison v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 688 , 300 N.E.2d 67, 80 ; Christian Super Chevrolet Corp. v. State (1976), 169 Ind. App. 143 , 346 N.E.2d 602, 605 .

1977Gradison v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 688 , 300 N.E.2d 67, 80 ; Christian Super Chevrolet Corp. v. State (1976), 169 Ind. App. 143 , 346 N.E.2d 602, 605 .

1977Gradison v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 688 , 300 N.E.2d 67, 80 ; Christian Super Chevrolet Corp. v. State (1976), 169 Ind. App. 143 , 346 N.E.2d 602, 605 .

1977Gradison v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 688 , 300 N.E.2d 67, 80 ; Christian Super Chevrolet Corp. v. State (1976), 169 Ind. App. 143 , 346 N.E.2d 602, 605 .

1977Upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one [1] year from the making thereof; unless the prom *167 ise, contract or agreement, upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized; excepting, however, leases not exceeding the term of three [3] years. [1 R.S. 1852, ch. 42, Sec. 1, p. 299.]” In Purity Maid Products Co. v. American Bank & Trust Co. (1938), 105 Ind. App. 541 , 14 N.E.2d 755, 758 , the general rule was stated as follows: “Whe

1977Upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one [1] year from the making thereof; unless the prom *167 ise, contract or agreement, upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized; excepting, however, leases not exceeding the term of three [3] years. [1 R.S. 1852, ch. 42, Sec. 1, p. 299.]” In Purity Maid Products Co. v. American Bank & Trust Co. (1938), 105 Ind. App. 541 , 14 N.E.2d 755, 758 , the general rule was stated as follows: “Whe

1972Holcomb v. Miller (1971), Ind. App., 269 N.E.2d 885 .

1972We are of the further opinion that said instruction was not mandatory; however, we will not go into this at great length since the appellant has failed to cite any authority in his brief on this contention and thereby waives the same. *489 This court dealt at length with the rule on mandatory-instructions in Cato v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N. E. 2d 146 , and determined a mandatory instruction has been held to be when the instruction assumes to set out all of the elements essential to a recovery and directs the jury to find for the plaintiff.

1972We are of the further opinion that said instruction was not mandatory; however, we will not go into this at great length since the appellant has failed to cite any authority in his brief on this contention and thereby waives the same. *489 This court dealt at length with the rule on mandatory-instructions in Cato v. Fine (1971), 149 Ind. App. 163 , 271 N. E. 2d 146 , and determined a mandatory instruction has been held to be when the instruction assumes to set out all of the elements essential to a recovery and directs the jury to find for the plaintiff.

1972The trial court stated in its ruling that: "The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water being emitted from the flusher mounted behind his back, and no evidence of his assumption or incurral of the risk of being scalded while using the bathroom stool." [3] As to Memorial Hospital's burden of proof, the trial court stated: "The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water..." The

1972The trial court stated in its ruling that: "The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water being emitted from the flusher mounted behind his back, and no evidence of his assumption or incurral of the risk of being scalded while using the bathroom stool." [3] As to Memorial Hospital's burden of proof, the trial court stated: "The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water..." The