Case law

Dontae M. Clark v. State of Indiana

6 N.E.3d 992 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2014

An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. … Clark has failed to establish fundamental error in this regard. II.

Baker v. Wagers

472 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Conneally, as supervisor of paternity testing, was eminently qualified to authenticate the challenged document. … However, Bradley is clearly distinguishable upon both the facts and the underlying analysis.

Haggard v. PSI Energy, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1991

upon the rights, privileges or immunities secured to the complaining party by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is "private" on the one hand, or "state action

Westhoven v. Lincoln Foodservice Products, Inc.

616 N.E.2d 778 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1993

Clearly, the ADA places a congressional imprimatur upon the prohibition of discriminatory employment practices in the private sector. … At best, it is a misguided attempt to editorialize upon matters clearly beyond the scope of the Commission's authority.

Clark v. Sporre

777 N.E.2d 1166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2002

The second stated in part “that expert testimony is necessary in this case both to establish the standard of care to be exercised by physicians and to establish whether or not the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause … necessary in this case both to establish the standard of care to be exercised by physicians and to establish whether or not the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause of the injuries claimed.

Brenda Sue Gittings and Marc Richmond Gittings v. William H. Deal

84 N.E.3d 749 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2017

Trust A was designed to be a Q-TIP trust and qualify for a marital deduction to minimize the federal estate tax. … Those appealing the trial court’s judgment must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. Id.

Patten v. Smith

172 Ind. App. 300 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1977

Patten’s tendered instruction number 8, which was rejected by the trial court, reads as follows: “I instruct you that to establish that the defendant, Maurice Patten, or the defendants published the pamphlets with *305 reckless … This instruction, which is synonymous with the one given in this case, was determined to be “clearly impermissible” because it erroneously interpreted the New York Times standard. Beckley Newspapers v.

Wayne v. Lake Station City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Allgire v. State

575 N.E.2d 600 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 21, 1991

Phipps was not sufficiently qualified to give expert testimony on that subject. Appellant then made a lengthy offer to prove and moved that the court qualify Dr. … Defense counsel also established that Dr.

Anderson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

412 N.E.2d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1980

“The worker adjustment assistance provisions enacted in 1962, however, have clearly not been very effective. For the first seven years of the program, no worker was found eligible for its benefits. … to whom it is applicable if they meet the qualifying requirements outlined in the next section.

Kelso v. Cook

184 Ind. 173 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1916

Any person who will be a qualified elector at the election for which such primary is being held, whose name does not appear on such book of registration, shall be entitled to vote if he shall make affidavit that he is a qualified … Section 23 of our Bill of Rights (Constitution, Art. 1) prohibits the granting to a citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, on the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. American Dairy of Evansville, Inc.

167 Ind. App. 367 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1975

Initially, it should be noted that in construing the relevant statutory language granting the claimed exemptions, we are bound by the established rule of construction that in the presence of ambiguity the language of the … Though clearly essential to the cleaning process, their impact is arguably less direct than that of the cleaning compounds. The drawing of a distinction at this point may seem unduly technical.

State of Indiana v. Justin Bazan

45 N.E.3d 856 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 974 (Ind. Ct. … The two statutes have markedly different thresholds for establishing a violation.

Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction

871 N.E.2d 975 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2007

He argues that the tape would have clearly proven his claims and allegations. … Justice Rucker concurred, stating that he thought Blanck was wrongly decided but that Blanck , and the authority on which it rests, is now established law. 6 .

United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States

384 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 1974

The government does challenge, however, whether UHS’s stated purpose is a “charitable” purpose qualifying for exemption under Section 501. … These and other specialized services as set out in such stipulations clearly distinguish the UHS laundry service from ordinary, general or commercial laundry service as a matter of fact.

Richard Vance Hastings v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

58 N.E.3d 919 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2016

The trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court … Belloto’s testimony was done pursuant to the established Indiana Rules of Evidence.

Trustees of Indiana University v. WILLIAMS

252 Ind. 624 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1969

However, we are not in a position to say that appellant’s witnesses are any better qualified, or more expert in appraising the valué of real estate than appellees’ witnesses. … Therefore, the testimony was clearly not hearsay. Judgment affirmed. *632 DeBruler, C.

In Re Guardianship of JK

862 N.E.2d 686 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2007

s] interests are best served by placement with the [Kindreds] is clearly and convincingly overcome by evidence proving that [J.K.' … We conclude that the trial court's termination of the guardianship is not clearly erroneous.

Benavidez v. City of Rochester, Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2023

on the basis of qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the federal right at issue was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id.

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. Wernert

36 N.E.3d 1185 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2015

again to qualify, effectively creating a second wave of submission for all hospitals without a set deadline, and that the standards established by FSSA are reasonable and adherence to those standards is not arbitrary and … Methodist argues that, because Parkview’s original submission fell short of establishing it qualified for DSH payments, Parkview demands special treatment.