Case law

Rocca v. Southern Hills Counselling Center, Inc.

671 N.E.2d 913 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1996

Thus, public policy supports the recognition of an exception to the physician-patient privilege despite the absence of language to that effect in the statute which established the privilege. … An abrogation of the common law will be implied where a statute is enacted which undertakes to cover the entire subject treated and was clearly designed as a substitute for the common law or where the two laws are so repugnant

Norman A. Boerger Insurance, Inc. v. Indiana Employment Security Board

158 Ind. App. 154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1973

Boerger’s services qualify as employment under the Employment Security Act? 1 Our opinion concludes that Norman A. Boerger Insurance, Inc. did not carry its burden of proof and establish by the evidence that Norman A. … The manner of remuneration coupled with the factual independence from control clearly established him as an independent contractor. None of the evidence or reasonable inferences available in News Publishing Co. V.

United States v. Maxey & Co., Pc

956 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 1997

First, the court finds that the Government has sufficiently established that the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. … However, the Eighth Circuit held that, at the grand jury stage, such issues are clearly premature. Id.

Spice Valley Sch. Twp., Lawrence County v. Rizer

214 Ind. 528 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1938

a permanent tenure teacher; that the township trustee refused to furnish appellee employment as a teacher during the school year beginning in September, 1931, although appellee was at all times ready, willing, able and qualified … It follows, therefore, that the introduction in evidence of appellant’s exhibits 2, 5, and 7 would not be calculated to establish any fact to defeat the appellee’s right to teach for the school term of 1931-1932.

Hammond

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2026

Qualified Immunity Here again, the Court largely agrees with the standard cited by Defendant, that to ascertain whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified … immunity from civil liability in a § 1983 excessive force claim, the Court must evaluate: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Neff v. Hmurovich

261 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2003

Hmurovich and Vaughn are not entitled to qualified immunity. 6 ■ Nevertheless, even after making these assumptions in Mr. Neffs favor, we conclude that Mr. … If the answer to the first question is yes, we inquire whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hope v.

Stewart v. Gallagher

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2023

Qualified immunity, which protects government officials from damages liability, “attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Turning to the second element of qualified immunity, a constitutional right is “clearly established” when “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Security Trust Corp. v. Estate of Fisher Ex Rel. Roy

797 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2003

We then analyzed the viatical settlement contract under the test established in Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946). Id. at 1195. … "Such an amendment raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intent more clearly." Id.

State Ex Rel. McGovern v. Gilkison, Judge

208 Ind. 416 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1935

Applying the reasoning to the case at bar, it will be seen that the right of Kays and his associates to hold the offices was only established by their own assertion. … In reversing the case, this court said (p. 218) : “The authorities clearly establish that courts of equity will not interfere to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public officers or their title

State v. Gill

949 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2011

In reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, we reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. at 728-29 . … The State argues that the facts against Gill, as stated in the information, establish that he committed an offense.

Harris v. Traini

759 N.E.2d 215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2001

As such, none of the defendants here is immune under the IRUS. . … Clearly, since Burrell, the standard has changed. As such, we do not find Martin dispositive here. .

R.R.F. v. L.L.F.

956 N.E.2d 1135 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2011

It is well established that we may reconsider a ruling of our motions panel, but “ ‘we decline to do so in the absence of clear authority establishing that it erred as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Oxford Fin. … In a related argument, Father contends that the dissolution court’s order requiring a yearly redetermination of Mother’s tax credit subsidy is clearly erroneous because he has already established the amount Mother will receive

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: L.S. (Minor Child), and A.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

125 N.E.3d 628 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2019

Standard of Review [12] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights proceedings is well established. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229-30.

Old Town Development Company v. Langford

349 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1976

Even more important for our purpose, additional exceptions made inroads on caveat lessee and a landlord's tort immunity. Five clearly developed exceptions emerged. … To establish personal liability under this rule the Supreme Court of Indiana in Hinds v.

Weldy v. Kline

616 N.E.2d 398 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1993

The issue of subject matter jurisdiction was clearly presented to the trial court and is the sole issue argued on appeal. Pursuant to TR 61 we therefore proceed to its determination. … Finally, Kline argues that Weldy is not immune from liability under the Act because he was engaged in horseplay at the time he threw Kline into the pool.

King v. State

531 N.E.2d 1154 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1988

He asserts that the jury was as qualified as Herrara to make that determination and that it was error to permit Herrera’s “lay” opinion. … State’s witness Podolak was qualified as a hair and fiber expert.

Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor

51 N.E.3d 461 · Indiana Tax Court · May 4, 2016

On July 17, 2013, the Indiana Board issued a final determination finding that the parties’ evidentiary presentations had established that the Joneses’ residence was assessed as if it were 100% complete during the years … at issue when clearly it was not.

Brown v. State

468 N.E.2d 841 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1984

In sum the support marshalled for the appellate claim of insufficiency of evidence merely asks this court to substitute a different complex of factual inferences for those inferences qualifying as reasonable inferences supporting … The evidence of identity was clearly sufficient. *843 2.

Matter of Gifford

93 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 1988

This holding “is consistent with the well established principle that the bankruptcy estate inures to whatever rights the debtor had at the time the petition was filed.” … The principle is now so firmly established, however, that it must be followed and applied.

Kudla v. Hammond City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 16, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” … “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes where [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right