Case law

CALUMET BREWERIES v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.

951 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 1994

Central typically purchases enough beer 5 from Heileman each month to qualify for the maximum discount, usually $.50., Calumet hardly ever does. … A state law which authorizes an anti-trust violation does not immunize the violator. Midcal, 445 U.S. at 106 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 . (The state supervision requirement has been abandoned for municipal actors.

Fields v. Rozzi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2023

The defense also asserts qualified immunity. … “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes where [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Stroud v. State

809 N.E.2d 274 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 25, 2004

The defendant's counsel was not qualified to represent Lowrimore in a capital case and so the court, finding an emergency, vacated the original trial date in order to appoint qualified attorneys under Criminal Rule 24. … R. 24 qualified attorneys were not available who could have prepared Stroud's trial adequately." (Br. of Appellant at 37.)

Turner v. Boy Scouts of America

856 N.E.2d 106 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2006

See Cortez, 827 N.E.2d at 1234 (plaintiff has burden of establishing that protection of qualified privilege was lost because defendant abused privilege). … He also conceded that he did nothing to confirm the credibility (or lack thereof) of Turner's accusers, one of whom was apparently embroiled in a custody battle with Turner. 4 Clearly, Vollmer's com *115 munications about

State of Indiana v. Chad Bryant

4 N.E.3d 808 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2014

A trial court has abused its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … As we stated above, the Supreme Court clearly stated in Stewart that: “a person who has been judged an HTV remains in that status until the BMV rescinds its designation[] and [] is not free to disregard this administrative

State of Indiana v. John Lombardo

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2000

[7] Four federal circuits have held that the Federal Wiretap Act does not immunize interspousal wiretaps. See Heggy v. … Two federal circuits have held that Title III does immunize interspousal wiretaps. See Simpson v.

Gingerich v. City of Elkhart Probation Department

273 F.R.D. 532 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 8, 2011

To meet the qualified immunity from discovery based on Rule 26(b)(3), the materials sought must be: “(1) documents and tangible things; (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; and (3) by or for a party or … Materials or investigative reports developed in the ordinary course of business do not qualify as work product.

Komoscar v. Pence

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 2021

In the context of this case, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that it was clearly established that the interference with their familial integrity rights was unconstitutional (that … Loomis is entitled to qualified immunity on this argument.

Butrum v. Roman

803 N.E.2d 1139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2004

A child may not qualify for emancipation under one of the subsections yet may meet the requirements for emancipation under another. See Borders, 800 N.E.2d at 591 . … The trial court's finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous.

Welch v. Young

950 N.E.2d 1283 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2011

On appeal, Welch makes no independent arguments concerning governmental immunity or premises liability. … As to the golfer’s errant drive that resulted in Pfenning’s injury, “such conduct is clearly within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers and thus is reasonable as a matter of law and does not establish the element of

STATE BD. OF REG. FOR PROF. ENG. v. Eberenz

723 N.E.2d 422 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2000

Indiana Code ' 25-31-1-12(a) (1993) establishes the minimum evidence, or Arequirements for registration,@ that must be demonstrated by an applicant in order to qualify for registration as a professional engineer … Eberenz=s argument clearly stands or falls on the meaning of the term Aapplicant@ as it is used in subsection (c).

Davis v. State

529 N.E.2d 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1988

Furthermore, Davis fails to establish how Henderson's testimony would have influenced his defense. … Stokes was able to clearly view Davis's face because a light was on in Carver's kitchen.

Pleasant School Township v. Fultz

79 Ind. App. 27 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1922

From this brief statement of facts it clearly appears that a right result has been reached. It is expressly provided in §350 Burns 1914, §345 R. … It is well established by many authorities that, where there are special findings and conclusions of law, any error in overruling a demurrer to the pleading is immaterial. Woodward v.

Community Care Centers, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Public Welfare

523 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 1988

Clearly, an agency should not be bound by prior policy when that policy proves to be flawed or in need of change. However, a change in policy must be explained and the reasons therefor articulated. See Cheshire Hosp. v. … As clarified in Columbia Broadcasting: "We do not challenge the Commission's well established right to modify or even overrule an established precedent or approach,. ...

Back v. Heckler

561 F. Supp. 1223 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 1983

Establishment of a disability which would entitle plaintiff to benefits under the Social Security Act is a two-step process. … The plaintiff, in this case must meet the requirements of category 3.02 of the “Listings” in order to qualify for benefits.

Mumford v. State

514 N.E.2d 624 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1987

In Lottie, this Court found that the evidence amounted only to "grounds for suspicion" and the identifying testimony "equivocal and qualified," with significant differences between the assailant and the defendant. … Despite defendant's claims of omitted unique identification characteristics, we find that the probative evidence was clearly sufficient to enable the jury to determine that defendant was the victim's assailant.

Prock v. Town of Danville

655 N.E.2d 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1995

Thus, the Plaintiffs did not qualify under the annexation statute to file a remonstrance to challenge the Town's annexation portion of Ordinance No. 5. … Thus, the Shrouts clearly did not have standing to pursue an action for declaratory relief challenging the annexation.

Marriage of Collier v. Collier

702 N.E.2d 351 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1998

The regulation clearly includes “modification” among the services provided by the Bureau and the attorneys with whom it contracts. … The explicit legislative directive to comply with federal requirements and thereby qualify for federal funding constitutes yet another persuasive reason to construe the statute as the State does, and as we do, to permit assistance

Healey v. State

969 N.E.2d 607 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

In so doing, we assess the following factors, established by the United States Supreme Court in Kennedy v. … An allegation that a trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant on appeal to establish that the mitigating evidence is significant and clearly supported by

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber

182 Ind. App. 133 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1979

finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: “(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or “(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … It is well established that the substantial evidence test cannot be utilized to assay the ‘reasonableness’ of the conclusions of ultimate fact inferred by an agency from its findings of basic fact. See, e. g., NLRB v.