Case law

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.

Mitchell v. State

535 N.E.2d 498 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1989

The immunity granted DeLucio and all the facts about that grant were before the jury. The record reveals little, if any, equivocating by DeLucio. Cireumstantial evidence also supported Delucio's testimony. … Clearly, rereading the final instructions has never been the sole solution to ary problem or inquiry from the jury. See Ortiz v.

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.

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.

Conrad v. State

747 N.E.2d 575 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2001

This provision imposes two requirements upon statutes granting unequal privileges or immunities to differing classes of people. … Additionally, this case is clearly distinguishable from Kellett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 975 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), cited by Conrad.

Merritt v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 11, 2023

Third, Officer McClafferty argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Merritt does not have a clearly established right to have a clean cell without delay during a prison emergency. ECF 43 at 12-14. … On these facts, Officer McClafferty is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Hope v.

Kooshtard Property I, LLC v. Monroe County Assessor

38 N.E.3d 750 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 2, 2015

The Indiana Board has abused its discretion when its final determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or when it misinterprets the law. … Based on its review of the administrative record, the Court concludes that Kooshtard has not established that the Indiana Board’s final determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

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.

Indianapolis Machinery Co. v. Bollman

169 Ind. App. 195 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1976

On December 1, 1952, the Company established a profit-sharing plan and a profit-sharing trust for the benefit of its employees. … The evidence established the right of Cohen to recover upon the theory of an express unilateral contract.

McKinney v. State

693 N.E.2d 65 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1998

Intent to defraud or mislead is thus clearly an element of an incurable deceptive act. But just as clearly intent is not essential to every deceptive act. … If it were, every deceptive act would be “incurable” because virtually any intentional misleading would qualify as a “scheme, artifice or device.”

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

Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co.

96 Ind. App. 342 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1932

Most of the evidence is not in conflict and it establishes the following facts, to-wit: That the appellant had a general checking account in the appellee bank in a sum in excess of $235.00; that on March 23, 1929, while said … Clearly the California case is not in point on the controlling questions of the instant case.

Hanson v. State

704 N.E.2d 152 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1999

We will not disturb a trial court’s determination that a witness is qualified to testify as an expert absent an abuse of discretion. Burkett v. … It is well-established that possession of property may be actual or construc-five. State v. Hill, 688 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind.App.Ct.1996).

Graham v. State

441 N.E.2d 1348 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1982

The evidence in this case clearly supports the jury’s inference that defendant committed the burglary. … All of these exhibits were connected to defendant by the testimony of a police officer, a qualified fingerprint identification expert, who compared the fingerprints in state’s exhibit No. 1, which were known to be defendant

Drogosz v. Newkirk

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 16, 2022

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Appx. 353, 355 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Bridges and finding qualified immunity applied to shield the defendant because it had not been clearly established “that a threat to file a grievance was protected”); Cobian v.

Stewart v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

545 N.E.2d 7 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1989

The school board contends that they were more qualified than Stewart because they had classroom teacher's licenses. … The language of rule 2 clearly stated that personnel "shall be properly certified".

Pedigo v. Grimes

113 Ind. 148 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1887

We must, therefore, uphold the finding of the trial court on this question of fact, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong. … Bodily residence in a place, *153 coupled with an intention to make such a place a home, will establish a domicile or residence.”

Mazzacone v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

195 F. Supp. 3d 1022 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2016

Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.1995) (“[A] Rule 59(e) motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.”) … Jul. 10, 2008) (finding that the plaintiff is not qualified under the ADA, in part, because “[n]either [the plaintiff] herself [n]or any other witness establish that there was a particular job at the facility that did not

Reburn v. State

421 N.E.2d 604 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1981

The jury was instructed that it could properly consider evidence tending to establish motive or lack of motive in arriving at its verdict, but that proof of motive was not essential to conviction. … It is not unfair or unintelligible as contended, as it clearly empowers the jury to consider lack of evidence revealing the accused’s personal reasons for committing the acts shown.

City of Mishawaka, Ind. v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc.

465 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 30, 1979

The facts established at trial clearly indicate that it should. … While a subordinate governmental unit’s claim to Parker immunity is not as readily established as the same claim by a state government sued as such, we agree with the Court of Appeals that an adequate state mandate for anticompetitive