Case law

Jeffrey Allen Rowe v. Bruce Lemon

976 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2012

Turning to Section 1983, that statute provides a civil remedy against any “person” who, acting under color of state law, subjects an American citizen to a deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … The DOC already had to provide such meals to persons requesting them for sincere religious beliefs pursuant to Judge Magnus-Stinson’s order.4 Although Rowe, obviously, is not Jewish, Judge Magnus-Stinson’s order quite clearly

Common Coun. Mi City v. Bd. of Zoning App.

881 N.E.2d 1012 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2008

Cullison clearly demonstrates that it is left to a private citizen or entity to decide whether to take sides in such a disagreement. … Clearly, the Common Council does not fall under any of these statutes as a party permitted to challenge the continued validity of an annexation.

Thayer v. Vaughan

801 N.E.2d 647 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2004

In our original opinion, this court determined that the Thayers failed to establish claims for sexual harassment or sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and that the sexual harassment claim was time barred, … In this case, the record demonstrates that the Tribune terminated Dale because it no longer viewed Dale as qualified to fulfill his obligations as Purchasing Manager.

Randy Corn v. Junior P. Corn, Bonnie D. Corn and Benjamin Corn

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2015

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … To establish adverse possession of the lane, the Corns were required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements of “(1) control, (2) intent, (3) notice, and (4) duration.” Wilfong v.

Matthew Longest, by Robert Longest, Adm. & Parent of Matthew Longest, & Robert Longest, Jr. Adm. of Maribel Longest v. Lisa M. Sledge, minor & Roger Brown & Donna Sledge

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2013

More is required to establish dependency for the purposes of the GWDS. … The trial court clearly considered the reasonableness of the $350/hour billable rate.

Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Hurm

422 N.E.2d 371 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1981

At the end of the offer to prove, counsel for I&M re-offered Grundhoefer as a witness to establish the fair market value of the Hurms’ property and also to establish the highest and best use of the property. … In the case at bar, counsel for the Hurms stipulated that Grundhoefer qualified as an expert valuation witness, but objected to his testimony in this case.

Paternity: Grisel Bonilla Lemus v. Jaime Lazo Alvarenga

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2023

SIJ is a classification under federal law that allows a qualifying resident alien child the potential to attain lawful permanent residency in the United States. … [19] Although we have found that Mother’s motions should have been granted, we nevertheless believe that the better practice would have been to clearly indicate to the trial court in the petition or at

Cooley v. Kelley

52 Ind. App. 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1911

Harper, Jr., was named as executor of the mil, and after qualifying and making final settlement was duly discharged. … This holding is clearly right, for the reason that no interest whatever passed by the will to the trustees.

Chicago & Erie Railroad v. Kreig

22 Ind. App. 393 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 1899

However well the doctrine of the Paramore case may be established, yet the case at bar is not controlled by this doctrine. … The evidence showed intricate and combined means for preventing the emission of fire from the smoke-stacks of locomotives, and the subject-matters of these questions were clearly of such character that a qualified expert

Joseph C. Lehman v. State of Indiana

55 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

Such activity certainly qualifies as “engag[ing] in the business of a practicing lawyer” as contemplated by Section 33-43-2-1. … Conclusion [23] We conclude that (1) the trial court did not clearly error in finding that Lehman failed to establish historical facts which support a rational inference of bias necessary to justify a change

Leon Tyson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2023

Judge Sutton further found that Forensic Specialist Chapman had “misled [Deputy Prosecutor] Becker into believing that he was qualified to conduct the type of latent print comparisons that [had] exist … of bias or prejudice may be established if a judge’s order is sufficiently egregious.

Washington v. Allison

593 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1992

Washington failed to establish excusable neglect. FACTS Wilton Allison filed suit against Dr. Washington in Marion Municipal Court 1 on November 1, 1990. … Washington practices medicine by himself, as a sole practitioner, and as a sole proprietor, qualifies him as an individual within the meaning of T.R. 4.1 and not as an organization within the meaning of T.R. 4.6.

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Harbor Bay v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2013

Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause imposes two requirements[.]” … Clearly, however, Tavern Owners’ petition for relief is not targeted toward expanding the ban such that riverboat patrons are free of second-hand smoke.

Woodward v. Heritage Const. Co., Inc.

887 N.E.2d 994 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2008

A judgment is clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings or if those findings do not support the judgment. See id. … Woodward’s argument that Heritage’s work between June 9, 2005, and July 22, 2005, was so substandard as to not qualify for services rendered under Indiana Code Section 32-28-3 — 3(b)(2) is contrary to the court’s finding

Kline v. Kline

455 N.E.2d 407 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1983

But in some few cases absence may be a policy, instead of the result of military service, and discretion is vested in the courts to see that the immunities of the Act are not put to such unworthy use." 98 N.E.2d at 511 . … Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 53.5 reads in pertinent part: "Upon motion, trial may be postponed or continued in the discretion of the court, and shall be allowed upon a showing of good cause established by affidavit

Cohoon v. Financial Plans & Strategies, Inc.

760 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2001

We will not set aside the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are. clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … We find nothing in the record to suggest this finding was clearly erroneous.

Adrienne Tyler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2015

Tyler has therefore established that the State restricted her expressive activity. See id. … We therefore conclude that Tyler’s expression therefore qualified as political expression.

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Consolidated Insurance Co.

673 N.E.2d 522 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1996

Progressive maintains that the clear, unambiguous language of the Colletts’ policy qualifies Simpson as an “insured.” … This case is similar to a permissive user situation which would clearly be covered under the same sections of the policy.”

Dallaly v. State

916 N.E.2d 945 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2009

Dallaly has established that the State restricted his expressive activity. See Johnson v. … s otherwise political speech "clearly amounted to an abuse of the right to free speech and thus subjected her to accountability under Seetion 9." Id.

In Re The Termination of The Parent-Child Relationship of: Ca.B. and C.B. (Minor Children), and T.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2018

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment. Id.