Case law

Whitelick Indiana Aerie 3702 Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. Hendricks County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

82 N.E.3d 940 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 1, 2017

Burden on Taxpayer to Establish Exempt Status. … Prior to the establishment of this court, in Fort Wayne Sport Club, Inc., the Court of Appeals held that, “the exemption is very clearly limited to such association as that term is defined in the 1935 act at § 181, [now,

Anderson v. Torrington Co.

120 F.R.D. 82 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 1987

He argues that Torrington has not put forth the requisite showing of substantial need and undue hardship to meet the burden established in Rule 26(b)(3). Torrington argues that Mr. … Three tests must be satisfied to invoke the qualified privilege.

LeSea Broadcasting Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

525 N.E.2d 637 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 17, 1988

“It is well established that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed in favor of the tax, and the burden is upon the one claiming the exemption to show that the property clearly falls within … Even if LeSea's property does not qualify for exemption under IC 6.1-1-10-21, it is not precluded from qualifying under IC 6-1.1-10-16 if it meets that statute’s qualifications.

American Family Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co.

857 N.E.2d 971 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2006

We have also stated that subsection (10) establishes preferred venue only in the event that preferred venue cannot be established by subsections (1) through (9). … It rather provides a number of grounds that can establish preferred venue.

DeMoss Rexall Drugs v. Dobson

540 N.E.2d 655 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1989

Clearly, by urging the position of those courts which have protected all documents routinely prepared by an insurer in the process of evaluating a claim, DeMoss is seeking immunity from discovery without qualification, broader … Even if the trial court accepted these affirmations as true, this evidence does not alter the character of the statements as a tool in the initial investigation of the claim or establish that the statements were intended

Raymond Dale Berryhill v. Parkview Hospital

962 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2012

Pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), the clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review of facts determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the opportunity of … In its amended judgment, the trial court determined that Parkview was entitled to immunity from Berryhill‟s false imprisonment claim pursuant to Indiana Code Section 12-26-2-6 because Berryhill failed to establish that

Walker v. State

274 Ind. 224 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1980

The law is clearly against this position. … But in all such cases, the misconduct being established, it will impose upon the prosecution the necessity of removing suspicion, by showing, as was done in this case, that the offending jurors were not influenced adversely

Seybold v. Rehwald

177 Ind. 301 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 23, 1911

That, at the time the matter of the establishment of the drain involved in this proceeding was referred to them by the court, December 18, 1908, both Beal and Cover were qualified, competent and acting drainage commissioners … It may be conceded that the cold, inanimate words of the record contain evidence which clearly would have sustained a finding in favor of appellants on both of these questions, but it does not stand alone, there is evidence

German v. State

268 Ind. 67 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1978

The defendant then said, “At this time, I am now prepared to handle my own defense.” *71 It is clearly established that a defendant charged with having committed a felony be allowed representation by counsel. Gideon v. … It is clearly established that the court’s appointment of standby counsel is the recommended procedure to preserve defendant’s rights when he elects to represent himself. United States v. Dougherty, (D.C.

Fields v. Roswarski

469 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2007

A plaintiff may not recover on a Fourth Amendment claim where “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officer … The factual allegations of the complaint also establish that officers Carpenter and Clyde had probable cause to arrest Mr.

Laurie Gardner v. Anonymous Physician

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2023

that fellow employee from liability, but the immunization is because of the type of accident involved, not because of a direct objective to immunize particular persons…. … Clearly, forcing the wrongdoer to bear the cost of his wrong, rather than the industry, will have a salutary effect in that it will operate as an incentive for careful conduct.

Amoco Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Labor

726 N.E.2d 869 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2000

trial court may grant relief upon finding that the agency’s action is: 1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Therefore, we find the purpose and practice of the investigation team’s formation and investigation to be sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to establish the admissibility of the interview summaries as hearsay.

Warrick Hospital, Inc. v. Wallace

435 N.E.2d 263 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1982

If true, such a death is clearly “caused by the wrongful act or omission of another” and within the purview of IC 34-1 — 1—2. … The affidavit by the secretary was clearly defective because it was not based upon personal knowledge.

Larry Myers v. Crouse-Hinds: GE v. Mary R. Geyman: Owens-Illinois, Inc v. Mary R. Geyman

53 N.E.3d 1160 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2016

State, 727 N.E.2d 437, 442 (Ind. 2000) ("Contrary to the defendant's assertion that the statute establishes a 'legislative distinction between accessories and principals,' . . . the accomplice liability statute neither establishes … Because the plaintiff has established that Section 2, as construed by Ott, creates two disparately treated classifications in violation of the Indiana Constitution's Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, we must invalidate

Wilburn v. State of Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 2020

that it would not violate clearly established rights.’” … Accordingly, as this was clearly established law, there can be no qualified immunity.” Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. To Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., p. 7, DE 139. The Plaintiff fails to provide any further context or analysis.

Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc.

737 F. Supp. 2d 976 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2010

To establish a failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff must show the employer was aware of his disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, in addition to the initial showing that he is a qualified individual … Clearly, a question of fact remains whether Hoffman’s requested accommodation was reasonable.

Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co.

132 F.R.D. 204 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1990

Baxter Travenol Lab., Inc., 676 F.Supp. 831 (N.D.Ill.1987) to establish waiver of the attorney-client privilege. … More to the point, the documents could establish the level of skill established by Hunt-Wesson at the time the purported invention was made.

Bleeke v. Lemmon

6 N.E.3d 907 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2014

The duty to give testimony was qualified at common law by the privilege against self-incrimination. And the Fifth Amendment has embodied this privilege in our fundamental law. … Clearly, this is unacceptable. Id.

KEEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2021

“To overcome a defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … The court has discretion “to decide which element of the qualified immunity defense to address first. If the answer to either question is no, the defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Walsh v. City of Michigan City

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2021

Under the circumstances here, Officer Henderson also has qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil damages “unless the plaintiff can show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time