Case law

Jaskolski v. Daniels

905 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2009

If that is so, and § 1447(d) applies, a remand order based on a finding that an action is not precluded would arguably be immune from review. … The Supreme Court has "adopt[ed] a common-law test for determining who qualifies as an 'employee'" for statutes where Congress has not provided another definition. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Lowery v. State

547 N.E.2d 1046 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1989

The defendant further concedes that no jurors were excused for am swering affirmatively to death-qualifying questions. … produces juries somewhat more ‘conviction-prone’ than ‘non-death-qualified’ juries,” but declared nonetheless, that “the Constitution does not prohibit the States from ‘death qualifying’ juries in capital cases.” 476 U.S

McKinnon v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2024

The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established law, as they used only a small amount of OC spray to subdue and maintain control over McKinnon … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

Latshaw v. State ex rel. Latshaw

156 Ind. 194 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1901

It is next insisted that the evidence does not support the complaint, as it fails to establish that the defendant entered into the marriage in question to escape a criminal prosecution. … We have examined the evidence and it clearly and beyond controversy, we think, establishes all of the material facts alleged in the complaint.

Ott v. AlliedSignal, Inc.

827 N.E.2d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2005

Frank's affidavit established that the disease process begins when an individual is first exposed to friable asbestos. … In some cases, the body's immune system suppresses the damaging effect of the fibers.

Economan v. Cockrell

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “To counter the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Greene v. Teslik, 2023 U.S. App.

Smith v. Iron Workers Dist. Council of S. Ohio & Vicinity Pension Trust

329 F. Supp. 3d 647 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 2018

In this case, the Fund, as the party moving for transfer, "has the burden of establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient." Coffey , 796 F.2d at 220 . … As such, the claim clearly 'relates to' an ERISA plan and is preempted by § 514(a) of ERISA."); Dorn v. Int'l Broth. of Elec.

Logan v. Hite, Admr.

214 Ind. 233 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1938

The widow qualified as administratrix of her husband’s estate. She died on March 27, 1935, and the appellee Edgar E. Hite was duly appointed and qualified as her successor. … Actions of this character are clearly recognized under our practice (Rodebaugh et al. v. Rodebaugh [1923], 79 Ind. App. 324 , 138 N.

Indiana Department of Revenue v. Glendale-Glenbrook Associates

429 N.E.2d 217 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1981

They protested this finding on the basis that another section of the Indiana Gross Income Tax Act specifically exempted qualified insurance companies from gross income tax liability as they were taxed under a separate section … It is a well-established principle that when this court is *219 called upon to construe words in a single section of a statute, it must construe them with due regard for all other sections of the act and with due regard for

Eitler v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center South-Bend Campus, Inc.

789 N.E.2d 497 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2003

Moreover, a plaintiff must establish the basic elements of defamation: (1) a communication with a defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. Id. … In this context, as to the defamation claim the information was clearly evaluative in nature and constituted the subjective opinion of the evaluator.

M.C. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2019

[16] Here, the evidence establishes that many less restrictive rehabilitative efforts have failed to reach M.C. and have not produced positive changes in his behavior. … § 31-37-18-9. 1 Furthermore, our legislature has imposed strict requirements on juvenile facilities to provide recreation, education, counseling, and health care that must be operated by qualified

Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. of Evansville v. Miller

451 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1983

Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is well established. … He was clearly within the scope of the Guild's activity when he struck Miller's motorcycle.

Meier v. American Maize-Products Co., Inc.

645 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1995

We conclude that the Board’s classification scheme does not unreasonably confer privileges and immunities upon any single group of dischargers. IV. … On the other hand, however, it has been correctly stated that a legislative amendment "may reflect their desire to express their original intention more clearly.” Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v.

Comandella v. Town of Munster

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

However, Defendants Ayersman and Wells are entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. … [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law.”

Scott A. Criswell v. State of Indiana

45 N.E.3d 46 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2015

Each of the officers then answered the investigators’ questions without being granted immunity. … At issue here is the scope of derivative-use immunity. The case law does not say that a defendant’s immunized statements may never be used by anyone under any circumstances.

In re the Guardianship of Benjamin Jack, an Incapacitated Person, Alex Jack (Father) v. Christine Jack (Mother) (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2020

The findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … Further, we will not set aside the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous when unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions thereon. Id.

State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Correction, and Indiana State Employees' Appeals Commission v. Debra Mills

76 N.E.3d 861 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2017

The SPD supervisor further added that only one of the Employees, Bird, qualified for bumping rights under the statute, and he declined such an offer. … First, however, we note that to the extent that the resolution of this case hinges on an interpretation of the (now repealed) State Personnel Act, we must “determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously

Rodgers v. Gary Community School Corp.

167 F. Supp. 3d 940 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2016

Cook Cnty., 563 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir.2009). 1 To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, Rodgers must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) GCSC was aware of her disability … Rodgers must also establish that she is a “qualified individual” under the ADA, which is defined as an individual with a disability “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the

Roberts Ex Rel. Estate of Roberts v. ACandS, Inc.

873 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 2007

Article I, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon … The Appellee requests that this Court’s opinion be published because it establishes a new rule of law as to the constitutionality of the Comparative Fault Act as applied in Workers’ Compensation.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush

736 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 1989

Clearly, a person who can establish nonliability can petition for reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred while complying with an order received after October 17,1986. 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (b)(2). … Furthermore, the source of the funds for reimbursement is the Superfund, a trust fund established in the United States Treasury and all suits to take money from the public treasury implicate sovereign immunity.