Case law

Jeffery A. Hmurovic, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2017

Your character, clearly dishonest and manipulative. … It was Hmurovic’s burden to establish that the mitigating evidence was both significant and clearly supported by the record. Id. at 493.

Parks v. Madison County

783 N.E.2d 711 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2002

Basic due process principles dictate that a law is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 . … I.C. § 35-50-6-5(a)(d) was clearly intended to discourage prisoners from filing repetitive and meritless actions that burden judicial resources.

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.

Losiniecki v. American States Insurance Co.

610 N.E.2d 878 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1993

However, Losiniecki fails to establish that he is legally entitled to recover damages from Officer Coan. … Nevertheless, the insurance policy issued by American was attached to American's motion for summary judgment and it was clearly considered by the trial court in granting the summary judgment.

Rice v. Genova Products, Inc.

978 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 1997

A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person— Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness … Rice has clearly not prevailed on a claim or issue in this litigation, especially in light of the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Genova.

Jay Classroom Teachers Association v. Jay School Corporation and Indiana Education Employment Relation Board

45 N.E.3d 1217 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2015

Furthermore it was not unreasonable for the Superintendent to have the authority—whether bargained or as a result of the LBO process—“to hire qualified employees and have the flexibility to offer attractive … that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.L. & C.S. (Children) and M.L. (Mother) M.L. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2017

precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing … In order for this court to overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, the error must have been ‘a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or

Hammon v. State

829 N.E.2d 444 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

Under less stressful circumstances we have expressed doubt that such a lengthy period would qualify. … We do not agree, however, that a statement that qualifies as an “excited utterance” is necessarily nontestimonial.

Schele v. Porter Memorial Hospital

198 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2001

A paramedic is “clearly higher ranking in terms of authority than the EMT” “with respect to the ambulance call and the responsibility of the vehicle.” Choate Dep. at 33. … The Plaintiff also points to Choate’s testimony that paramedics are “in charge” during emergency runs and are clearly higher ranking in terms of authority than EMTs.

City of Evansville v. State ex rel. Blend

118 Ind. 426 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1889

Are the commissioners composing the metropolitan police and fire board officers who require commissions from the Governor to authorize them to qualify and enter upon the duties of their offices ? 5. … To the first class privileges and immunities are granted, which, upon the same terms, do not equally belong to the second class.

M.R. v. State

605 N.E.2d 204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1992

He admitted his guilt as to each act of delinquency charged, and then gave testimony establishing his guilt as to each. … Clearly, she had no interest adverse to M.R. at the time. She was a loving parent, obviously concerned about her son and his future.

Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2025

Article 1, Section 1 expressly protects an “inalienable” right to “life,” which was a firmly established right long before Indiana became a state. … These include but were not limited to diabetes (gestational and preexisting), kidney disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease, molar pregnancy, auto-immune disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

Lake County Assessor v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp.

930 N.E.2d 1248 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 14, 2010

determination of the Indiana Board it is limited to determining whether it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … BP's Returns, however, clearly demonstrate that while BP assigned different labels to this equipment, 10 its distinct cost and acquisition date data shows that it claimed an exemption on the same pieces of equipment during

Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission

662 N.E.2d 950 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1996

We do not question the legitimacy of Indiana's interest in ensuring that alcoholic beverage permit holders are properly "qualified" to hold those permits. … North Dakota dealt with challenges based upon intergovernmental immunity and preemption, as opposed to the Commerce Clause.

Best v. Gary Community School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 2024

Defendant Morikis argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no “clearly established constitutional right” which he is alleged to have violated. … Plaintiff argues that there is no qualified immunity because her rights are clearly established.

In Re Estate of Hammar

832 N.E.2d 1065 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2005

The difference is that Margaret filed her petition first and was deemed qualified by the trial court in its Order of appointment. … Rather, we determined that the person chosen must also be qualified under the statute. Id.

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

935 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2010

In other words, if both parties qualify for the federal tax credit or certain tax credits, the Court should allocate the expenses equitably so that qualifying parties are not unnecessarily deprived of a deduction. … In other words, if both parties qualify for the federal tax credit or certain tax credits, the Court should allocate the expenses equitably so that qualifying parties are not unnecessarily deprived of a deduction.

Justice v. Justice

303 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2018

"To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that [s]he is a qualified individual with a disability, that [s]he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity … Accordingly, we find that the DCS Defendants are entitled to immunity from Plaintiff's state law claims under the ITCA. V.

David Bleeke v. Bruce Lemmon, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction Thor R. Miller, as Chairman of the Indiana Parole Board

Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2014

The lack of immunity served legitimate purposes because part of accepting full responsibility for their actions entailed prisoners “accept[ing] the proposition that those actions carry consequences,” and guaranteeing immunity … Clearly, this is unacceptable. Id.

Jones v. Becker

212 Ind. 248 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1937

A hearing was had and a receiver was appointed and qualified, and proceeded with the administration according to law. … They have had their day in court, and have failed to establish illegality in the proceedings. They do not deny default in the payment of dividends and the failure to redeem matured preferred stock.