Case law

Baird v. ASA COLLECTIONS

910 N.E.2d 780 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2009

We will not reverse the trial court's findings and judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. … Baird claims that the "FDCPA governs the actions of ASA in this matter and ... the facts established at trial clearly support only one conclusion, that ASA violated the provisions of that Act." Appellant's Br. p. 7.

Timmons v. State

723 N.E.2d 916 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2000

There could be no valid claim here that Harris was immune from prosecution because his person was the fruit of an illegal arrest.... … Before I can place you under arrest I must offer you a breath test for intoxication to be given by a qualified chemical test operator.

Fabiszak v. The Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2025

And there is no doubt that an unnecessary kick, after a suspect is under control, violates the suspect’s clearly established rights.”). … The Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on either of Bryan’s Fourth Amendment claims because it was clearly established at the time that it is unconstitutional for an officer to use force on someone who was

In Re: The Petition for Expungement of Conviction Records of: B.S. v. State of Indiana

95 N.E.3d 177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2018

The first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. … And when faced with an ambiguous statute, other well-established rules of statutory construction are applicable.

Miller v. Resler

172 Ind. 320 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 25, 1909

by the remonstrators by a preponderance of the evidence, and likewise the power of attorneys in fact, if challenged, must be established by the remonstrators. … The holding of the lower court on the question presented upon the filing with the auditor of the cards in controversy, authorizing the execution of the withdrawals, was, under the facts, clearly right. 10.

Wight v. Kosciusko County Office of Family & Children

712 N.E.2d 1081 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1999

For findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, the record must lack any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … It is well established that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children.

Sims v. Marnocha

159 F. Supp. 2d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2001

The doctrine of judicial immunity affords state judges absolute immunity for past judicial acts regarding matters within their court’s jurisdiction, even if their “exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave … Sims argues that Judge Marnocha “has admitted he had no jurisdiction,” but Judge Marnocha clearly had jurisdiction to decide whether he had jurisdiction. Mr.

J.S. Sweet Co. v. White County Bridge Commission

714 N.E.2d 219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

by case law, qualify as a federal public work. … However, the trial court’s finding on this issue controls unless clearly erroneous. See Darlage, 576 N.E.2d at 1307 .

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

Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2023

“A statute challenged under the Indiana Constitution stands before this Court clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Paul Stieler Enters., Inc. v. … There is likely a qualified right to bodily autonomy under Article 1, Section 1.

Hendershot v. State ex rel. Bennett

162 Ind. 69 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1904

term, assumed that the commissioners would do their duty, and elect at the time appointed, and that it was intended that the term should begin in about one month after election, if the *74 person elected should so soon qualify … We must have regard for the intention of the legislature in construing the law, and avoid giving it an effect that it clearly did not intend.

Scruggs v. Miller

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2021

The defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims for the same reasons. … “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

Michael Hays and Caryn Hays v. Amanda Hockett

94 N.E.3d 300 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2018

[24] Neither Indiana nor Oklahoma qualify as a home state for B.H. under the UCCJA. … Moreover, when Mother and Father returned to Indiana in February 2015, the family established a primary residence.

Legato Vapors LLC v. Cook

193 F. Supp. 3d 952 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2016

Indiana Privileges and Immunities—Open v. … clearly faster than it is blue.”

Fountain County Coal & Mining Co. v. Beckleheimer

102 Ind. 76 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 25, 1885

Our decisions establish the doctrine that the rule in Shelley’s Case is the law of the State, and by them we are bound. Ridgeway v. Lanphear, 99 Ind. 251 ; Shimer v. Mann, 99 Ind. 190 ; Maxwell v. … The signification which the qualifying word annexes'to the word “heirs”, is not an unknown or strange one, but is one recognized by general use and by the law. Broom Leg. Max. 521.

Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., and New Castle Realty, LLC

990 N.E.2d 958 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2013

BBR designated sixty-eight of Autumn Oaks’ seventy-two apartments as qualified low-income units, thereby qualifying the units for low-income tax credits pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 1 … The partnership and management agreements establish that the parties clearly intended to benefit NCR and that the duty imposed on F&C was in favor of NCR.

Greening v. State

198 Ind. 706 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1926

The facts stated in the affida- *714 vit properly pleaded might show another crime; but same is immaterial as the allegations therein establish the crime attempted to be charged. … Any words that express this idea or from which it can be clearly *718 inferred will be sufficient.

Hines Ex Rel. Hines v. Caston School Corp.

651 N.E.2d 330 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1995

As well said by Judge Cooley, 'The right to one's person may be said to be the right of complete immunity: to be let alone.! [Union Pacific Railway Company v. … We note that the Hineses stipulated at trial that they do not seek to establish that Jimmy's wearing of an earring is protected speech under the First Amendment.

McKinney v. Public Service Co. of Indiana

597 N.E.2d 1001 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1992

Additionally, to establish a joint venture, there must be a pecuniary attribute in the common purpose of the trip. Lafayette, 440 N.E.2d 759 . … Obviously, neither of these statutes clothe PSI with immunity under the present cir cumstances.

Nowicki v. Cannon Steel Erection Co.

711 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1999

In light of the extent of Custom's control of Battreall's work at the Custom job site, we cannot say the trial court finding that Custom established Battreall's work boundaries was clearly erroneous. … , would clearly support a contrary conclusion.

Cates v. McKinney

48 Ind. 562 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

Such declarations and expressions off *567 grief, no matter how or when made, if in the absence of the defendant, can not establish the contract. … The court should have so-framed or qualified the charge as to convey clearly to the j ury the understanding that the declarations, etc., of the plaintiff could only be considered as evidence of a promise on her part.