Case law

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.

648 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1995

Petitioner established he was otherwise qualified for the position sought. The evidence does not, as a matter of law, establish by a preponderance that the Petitioner was, "... … [Bauermeister] established he was otherwise qualified for the position sought. The evidence does not, as a matter of law, establish by a preponderance that [Bauermeis-ter) was "...

Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Peabody Coal Co.

740 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2000

Section 68 does not require an operator to establish 'land capability of the approved postmining land use, as well as a variety of other land uses. … The DNR, citing to 310 IAC 12-5-68, argues that this interpretation of the rule is erroneous because the SMCRA clearly requires that a miner return the land to its pre-mining capability.

LOVE v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that, even if they violated Mr. … has been clearly established for some time).

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Combs

873 N.E.2d 692 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2007

We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. … Clearly, these facts establish that Lumbermens had a basis to deny benefits wholly consistent with its contractual obligation to grant benefits only if a claimant is prevented from performing the essential functions of “any

Weinberg v. Geary

686 N.E.2d 1298 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1997

Of course, the proponent of the evidence must establish at least a minimal foundation for receipt of the expert opinion. … Clearly, on this testimony and without any challenge or objection the court was well within its discretion in determining an adequate foundation had been laid for Dr.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Vernon General Insurance Co.

784 N.E.2d 556 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2003

That [Vernon] is a domestic company duly authorized and qualified in the State of Indiana to engage in such business as granted by the terms of its special charter, and it is thereby duly authorized and qualified to engage … The 1942 Declaratory Judgment also established that Vernon is not subject to regulation by the Department or by general insurance laws.

In re Oliver

499 B.R. 617 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 8, 2013

Ball State is a state institution of higher education established under Ind. Code § 21-19-2 . (Brief, p. 1.) 2. … The cases Ball State cites in support of its argument are factually distinguishable because funds clearly changed hands.

Graham v. Lennington

74 B.R. 963 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 1987

establishing the grounds for such transfer, when supposedly competent businessmen part with large sums of money and retain no records and request no documentation, the transaction hardly qualifies as ordinary. … As stated earlier, the record on appeal does not establish that Graham or Purnell-Graham Company owed McDonald any money or that McDonald transferred those obligations to Ontario, Inc.

Lucero v. Lutheran University Ass'n

621 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1993

Plaintiff opined that he was 'not medically qualified, but offered no evidence as to why. [Record, p. 574]. 3. … Upon diagnosis with these conditions, Lucero's doctors determined Lucero was no longer medically qualified to serve in the United States Army.

CRUMLEY v. FORESTALL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021

Officer Jones asserts qualified immunity. … “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.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Inman v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 2020

“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 … 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.

Collins v. Purdue University

703 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 24, 2010

Federated’s story almost a month after the fact clearly reported that Collins’ assault and the date of Steffey’s last sighting happened to be the same date. … Although much of the initial CDA immunity was granted to internet service providers like AOL, Collins incorrectly asserts that the immunity ends with such providers.

Pallett v. State

269 Ind. 396 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1978

It is clearly established that a trial court’s denial of a motion for change of venue in a case such as this is reviewed only for abuse of trial court discretion. Ind. R. Crim. P. 12; Ind. … The trial judge, with defendant’s permission, further explained to the jury that the only order of the court regarding this witness had been an order of immunity for the testimony given at this trial.

Samuel C. Arp, II v. Indiana State Police

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2025

immunity. … This clearly is not what was intended by the Indiana legislature.

Admiral Insurance Company v. Joseph Banasiak

72 N.E.3d 491 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. … In other words, “[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court” or if the court misinterprets the law.

Rowe v. Davis

373 F. Supp. 2d 822 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2005

The court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Nevertheless he argues that the confiscated literature in question does not qualify and therefore cannot be prohibited for either of those reasons. Mr.

Bennett v. State

801 N.E.2d 170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2003

The use of the term does not establish that the terms "blood" and "body" refer to the same thing. II. … The presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary. Id. Thus, Bennett has the burden of establishing the lack of a rational basis. See Uhl v.

BROOKS v. CITY OF CARMEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2020

To overcome qualified immunity, Brooks must show there was a clearly-established constitutional right (defined with appropriate specificity) at the time of the incident, see Hernandez v. … Regarding Haney's claim to qualified immunity, in making this determination, the Court considers whether the facts demonstrate a constitutional violation and whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the

Kleven v. St. Joseph County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 2022

Joseph County, and that it either does not qualify for statutory immunity or an exception to the immunity statute applies. … The Klevens argue Motorola is not eligible for this immunity or, alternatively, qualifies for an exception to it.

Matthew Longest, by Robert Longest v. Lisa M. Sledge, a minor and Roger Brown and Donna Sledge, a/k/a Donna Seldge Brown (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 30 2015, 9:51 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … Findings are clearly erroneous only when they have no factual support in the record, and judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.