Case law

El v. Beard

795 N.E.2d 462 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2003

Qualified Tuition Program (QTP), http://www.irs.gov/iform-spubs/page/0,,id=104280,00.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2003). … Such programs are "set up to allow you to either prepay, or contribute to *464 an account established for paying, a student's qualified higher education expenses at an eligible educational institution." Id. 2 .

Pabey v. Pastrick

816 N.E.2d 1138 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2004

As to the Deliberate Actions ground, the legislature could not reasonably have intended to immunize obviously corrupt elections where the resulting distortion of an election outcome could not be precisely traced and mathematically … And this objective was clearly achieved. Given the exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, any other conclusion is inconceivable.

Males v. State

199 Ind. 196 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1927

The word “if,” which qualifies the first clause, was intended to and does qualify the second clause to which objection is made. The language did • not bind the consciences of the jurors. … It is not the law that a defendant is presumed to be at fault, by being the aggressor, until it is established as a fact- beyond a reasonable doubt that he was at fault.

SMITH v. MARTOCCIA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 2020

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v. … "To overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [Smith] must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at [that] time

Guinn v. Light

536 N.E.2d 546 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1989

Clearly, the panel has the implied authority and duty to make that determination because it bears directly upon the question of whether the panel has jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter at hand. … A patients' compensation fund is established to cover any shortfall between the liability of the provider(s) and the maximum limit. IC 16-9.5-2-2.

Cameron v. State

270 Ind. 185 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1979

The law is clear that final instructions are not to be orally qualified, modified, or in any manner orally explained to the jury by the trial judge. Ind. Code § 35-1-35-1 (Burns 1975). … The events of the present case, recited and discussed above, clearly show such reversible error to have occurred here. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Gentry v. Floyd County

313 F.R.D. 72 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2016

Defendants argue Plaintiffs cannot establish commonality for the same reasons the plaintiff in Secreti could not establish commonality. … Thus, the issues of concern to Defendants, such as individual damages and the defense of qualified immunity, will be considered (assuming liability is found) in separate and individualized proceedings.

Tinkle v. Wallace

167 Ind. 382 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1906

The alleged bribery was committed in appellant’s behalf and in his name, and under such proved circumstances as clearly justified the court in receiving the evidence at the time it was offered. People v. … This finding is clearly sufficient to uphold the judgment rendered, and appellant is in no position to complain because the court did not find and adjudge that some opposing candidate was entitled to the office, if it were

TORRES v. INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

For the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, at the outset, Ms. Themel defines qualified immunity too narrowly. See Estate of Perry v. … Under that facts-based standard, courts "often cannot tell from a complaint whether qualified immunity applies," and thus a motion to dismiss is "rarely" the time to decide qualified immunity. Roldan v.

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corp.

450 N.E.2d 130 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1983

The use of the word 'specific' rather clearly implies something different from a general provision and the use of the word 'provision' implies something less than the subsection. … However, if the Commission has the power of reinstatement, it may order an employer to offer employment to the employee, thus establishing a cut-off time for back pay.

Gray v. Abney

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id.

Truck Finance Specialists, Inc. v. W & S Leasing, Inc.

911 N.E.2d 612 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2009

The TFS bylaws established a board of directors consisting of three members, and named the initial three directors as Scott, Wiger, and Smith. … Complicating the Wades's conundrum, the IBCL clearly vests authority to initiate amendments to articles of incorporation with the board of directors.

JJ v. State

858 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2006

The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind.2004); Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5). … In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we accord no deference to conclusions of law. [6] Id.

Gary Sheet & Tin Employees Federal Credit Union v. United States

605 F. Supp. 916 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 1985

Initially, defendant agrees with the principle that the United States is immune from liability for reasons of sovereign immunity except where the immunity is waived and the United States consents to suit. … The purpose of the NCUA’s audit is to insure that the credit union is not a substantial risk to the insurer, the NCUA, and that it qualifies for insurance.

First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley

891 N.E.2d 604 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2008

It is well established that during the guardianship, any neglect of duty or fraudulent conduct by the guardian herein is a private wrong against the ward. State ex. rel. … In its brief, First Farmers focuses on I.C. §§ 29—3—11 —2(b); 29-3-11-4 providing civil immunity for guardians for certain actions or omissions done in good faith or in the absence of gross misconduct.

Estate of Hunt v. Board of Com'rs of Henry County

526 N.E.2d 1230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1988

The scientific model he utilized, his assumptions, and the changes he made in those assumptions are clearly stated in the record. … State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 1097 in applying the older, well established two-prong test for expert admissibility.

Jarrard v. Indiana Department of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 19, 2022

warned him to stop, is not clearly established to be a Constitutional violation.” … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity.

State v. Cooper

918 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2009

However, an individual seeking to vacate a guilty plea due to the lack of a factual basis must also demonstrate he was prejudiced by the failure to establish the factual basis. State v. … In addition, a review of Cooper's convie-tions clearly indicates he qualified as an habitual traffic violator on April 15, 1996.

In Re JH

911 N.E.2d 69 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2009

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … By its own terms, In re E.E.S. characterizes itself as an anomaly in the established case law.

Noel v. State

247 Ind. 426 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1966

The context in which the words in the indictment is used reveals clearly, and in our opinion, definitely its meaning. … This rule would not apply to a defendant himself unless he took the stand and waived his constitutional immunity against self-incrimination.