Case law

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.

Von Haden v. Supervised Estate of Von Haden

699 N.E.2d 301 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1998

When Howard was employed by United Technologies Automotive (UTA), *303 he established and funded a “UTA Savings Plan Account” (Plan). … Here, through the property settlement agreement, Judith clearly indicated her agreement to accept half of the Plan proceeds.

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.

City of Indianapolis v. Buckner

233 Ind. 32 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1954

It is established that the Legislature has power to create a municipal corporation for the purpose of protecting public health. Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of Muncie (1939), 215 Ind. 330 , 19 N. … Such provisions are clearly unconstitutional. However, these provisions are severable, and, so severed, the remainder of the act is workable.

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

Sumbry v. Misc. Docket Sheet for the Year 2003

811 N.E.2d 457 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

The trial court concludes: "[als in Parks, [Sumbry's] 'propensity towards endless litigation warrants the unusual step of establishing a screening mechanism to forestall frivolous lawsuits." … Here, Sumbry clearly attacks the validity of his convictions in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

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.

Smith v. Lake County

863 N.E.2d 464 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2007

Constitution and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, in that “when a defendant fails to appear, bail agents are subject to forfeiture and late surrender fees while defendants who post ten percent … Constitution or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Portman v. Steveco, Inc.

453 N.E.2d 284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 1983

The statute clearly establishes a different standard to be met for surviving husbands to qualify as presumptive dependents than that for surviving wives. … Clearly, the Legislature intended to allow presumptive dependency for widows and in some cases for widowers.

Angel Schoettle v. Chad Schoettle (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2015

For instance, there was a question about whether H.S. received her immunizations twice because they would not discuss the matter. … Judgments in custody matters generally turn on essential factual determinations and will be set aside only when they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 1112.

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023

Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law establishing a constitutional violation was not clearly established and "[n]o case law put [them] on notice that their July 18- 19, … "'[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.'"

SHIRLEY v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity Next, Cpl. … Deenik based on qualified immunity. Excessive Force vs Cpl.

State v. Hammans

870 N.E.2d 1071 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2007

If either the applicant’s income or the value of the applicant’s resources is too high, then the applicant does not qualify for Medicaid. Sanders v. State Family & Soc. Servs. … Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Kyle L. Doolin v. State of Indiana

970 N.E.2d 785 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances. N.W. v. State, 834 N.E.2d 159, 161 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. … A panel of this court upheld the trial court’s decision that the police officer was a qualified expert because he testified that: (1) he was trained to administer the test; (2) he followed the proper procedures; (3) the

Z.H. v. Garcia

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2022

“It is at this point the Rule 12(b)(6) defense and the qualified immunity defense become intertwined. … immunity defense, that is, whether the rights were clearly established at the time of the ride-along.

VALE-GUGLIUZZI v. LAYTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the chal- lenged conduct.” … "A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the

J.Q. v. D.R.L.

525 N.E.2d 298 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

John Harris, Larry Salloway, and Irene Yankauskas qualified as expert witnesses. … Because of our determination that the evidence clearly demonstrated good cause to the contrary, we conclude that the adoptive placement preferences, including established tribal preferences, are not binding under the facts

Pittman v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF SOUTH BEND

695 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2010

(under the indirect method, plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position sought … Pittman has not shown that he did anything to become a qualified Tech III during the month following his performance review, nor has he established that the SBHA’s explanation for promoting Boone was a ruse.