Case law

Almodovar v. State

464 N.E.2d 906 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1984

We now find that Blake's testimony was admissible because it clearly was about what he personally had observed of the crime. … Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the State properly qualified Blake as an expert witness.

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.

Benefield v. State

904 N.E.2d 239 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2009

An abuse of discretion occurs if "the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances." Id. … Had Benefield's forgery had its intended effect, she would have been working in a healthcare position for which she was not legally *249 qualified.

UTLX Manufacturing, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development

906 N.E.2d 889 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2009

. 1C §§ 22-4-11-2(a), (e) An employer's experience account is charged when a qualifying employee receives unemployment benefits based upon unemployment with that employer. … Therefore, the Department clearly acted within this four year time period.

Edwards v. State

500 N.E.2d 1209 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1986

Given these well established rules of law, appellants argue that the testimony of the victim was unresponsive, contradictory and at points exculpatory of appellants. … It is appellants' contention that the evidence clearly shows that the six-year-old witness did not have an understanding sufficient to qualify him as a witness.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C.

587 N.E.2d 1311 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1992

For its tax years ending in 1985, 1986, 1988, and 1989, Cay-lor-Nickel qualified for the small business corporation tax return on or before August 15 of each year. … The Indiana Tax Court was established to develop and apply specialized expertise in the prompt, fain, and uniform resolution of state tax cases.

Sink & Edwards, Inc. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.

458 N.E.2d 291 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1984

Furthermore, Sink failed to establish an inequality in bargaining. … There is nothing in the present case to establish a disparity in bargaining power between Sink and Huber. Sink failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

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.'"

Martin v. Wentz

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Second, Defendants argue, “Summary judgment should have been granted as the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” (ECF 200 at 7). … Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is not based on those allegations. Defendants do not argue that they would be entitled to qualified immunity based on those allegations.

GUY v. OTTINO

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2023

Guy's Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional. [Filing No. 39 at 7; Filing No. 42 at 6.] … "'[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.'"

Parsons v. Bourff

739 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 1989

Will clearly makes such a belief misplaced. Will held that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. … Moreover, the defendant makes no argument that any type of immunity protects her from suit in her individual capacity.

ANDERSON v. FLOYD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Analysis of the qualified immunity defense requires a consideration of: (1) whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Saucier v.

Moore v. Korty

11 Ind. 341 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1858

Indeed, it has been repeatedly decided that “a receipt may be explained, qualified, or even contradicted, by any evidence competent to establish a fact.” … In view of both instructions, we are of opinion that the jury may have been misled by the former, which seems to us to be clearly erroneous. Per Curiam.— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

James v. State

643 N.E.2d 321 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1994

It is true that the State alleged and proved two prior separate felony convictions of appellant in order to establish the habitual offender status. … However, if the evidence presented in fact does not qualify as mitigating, the trial court is not required to explain that the factor does not exist. Fugate v. State (1993), Ind., 608 N.E.2d 1370 ; Hammons v.

Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks

906 N.E.2d 835 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 21, 2009

Under those circumstances the Supreme Court declared the employee could establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by establishing “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified … To rebut this presumption, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254.

Langford v. United States

4 Indian Terr. 567 · Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · Sep 23, 1903

St. 1899), provides that “a juror cannot be examined to establish, as a ground for -a new trial, except to establish, as a ground for a new trial, that the verdict was made by lot." … Dec. 191 , in which the Supreme Court of Maine holds that: “It is the duty of the counsel offering a witness to move that he be sworn, and thus be qualified to testify. * * * Thus far the counsel for the opposite party has

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.

McElroy v. State

592 N.E.2d 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 1992

Agent Deadman clearly established what the standard procedures for DNA identification were. He also established he and his assistant followed standard procedure in the instant case, without any deviation. … At that point, they clearly placed the victims in fear. Soon thereafter, they forced the victims to the floor.

State v. Banks

48 Ind. 197 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

a wife can not be found guilty of larceny for stealing the goods of her husband, and that is upon the principle that the husband and wife are, in the-eye of the law, one person; but this rule is properly and reasonably qualified … She thereby determines her quality of wife, and her property in her husband’s goods ceases.” *199 We have made a careful examination of the authorities, and they very clearly establish the following propositions: 1.

Howard v. Robinette

122 Ind. App. 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1951

electricity for public use, such as street lighting and public buildings, and water for fire protection and for use in public buildings, the municipality was exercising a governmental function. *72 The courts of this state have clearly … While it is true, that grants of legislative authority do not confer on municipalities the power to operate the facilities of a power plant in total disregard of the private rights of others, and with complete immunity for