Case law

B.T.E. v. State of Indiana

108 N.E.3d 322 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2018

Instead, the attempt statute enables law enforcement to “minimiz[e] the risk of substantive harm without providing immunity for the offender.” Id. … Renowned jurists have long struggled with where to draw the line between mere planning and preparation, which are insufficient to establish the crime of attempt, and a substantial step, which is sufficient.

Meredith v. Pence

984 N.E.2d 1213 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2013

Moreover, in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, “every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality unless clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. at 338 ; see also State v. … ends with the following directive: The General Assembly shall from, [sic] time to time, pass such laws as shall be calculated to encourage intellectual, Sci-entifical, and agricultural improvement, by allowing rewards and immunities

State v. Smith

178 Ind. App. 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1978

The facts in this case are distinguishable from the Andrews case and clearly established that the design of the land to be acquired by the condemnation proceeding was for Modern Photo and hence a private use. … The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Gall v. State

811 N.E.2d 969 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2004

All of this testimony constitutes sufficient evidence to establish that Gall was a child under the statute. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id. Here, Gall attempted to solicit H.S.'

Knox v. State

164 Ind. 226 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1905

No purpose or intention is manifested to afford them any immunity or protection *234 from trial and punishment for any offenses committed in the state from which they flee. … evidence when the motion was made, that the several counts of the charge against appellant were founded upon the same essential facts, and . all arose from one transaction; the doctrine of election did not apply, and there was clearly

Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Inc. v. Ray

551 N.E.2d 463 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1990

Rather, Lomax filed an affidavit of her own that showed she was unattended by any of Winona's employees at the time of her fall, ie., she clearly was not receiving care or treatment at that time. … This suggests an intent that the panel confine itself to matters of malpractice, where members of the medical profession are naturally qualified as experts.

Carter v. Lake County Board of Election and Registration

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 8, 2022

to establish either a violation of a statutory or constitutional right or that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … only if they can show entitlement to qualified immunity (citing Scheuer v.

Rory Kerwood v. Elkhart County Sheriff's Department

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2024

In response, Kerwood argued the statements “clearly imply Kerwood engaged in criminal activity which is false.” Id. at 146. … The Sheriff’s Department argued it had immunity under Ind. Code § 34-13-3- 3(a)(7).

Department of Financial Institutions v. Mega Net Services

833 N.E.2d 477 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2005

If I qualify. MN: It's 40. *s * *s *t * * MN: Every two weeks. PI's Ex. 83. … establish such statutory violations.

Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

101 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 1999

The Federal Sovereign Immunities Act denies Canada the right to sovereign immunity for actions against it that arise out of commercial activities or torts that affect United States citizens. … It would follow that Canada does not have the power to immunize its corporate citizens from such suits, absent a treaty allowing such immunization.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health

794 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2011

It applies only to the extent that the provider “continues to be qualified,” as the Medicaid Act “clearly does not confer a right on a recipient to enter an unqualified [provider] and demand a hearing to certify it, nor does … services willing to render services in accordance with the fee schedules established by the state.”

HURT v. VANTLIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2019

They also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim because the law surrounding that claim is not clearly established. [Filing No. 429 at 8-9.] … The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court’s denial of qualified immunity related to William and Deadra’s wrongful pretrial detention. Hurt, 880 F.3d at 843-844.

Cook v. Harris

852 N.E.2d 933 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2006

We will find an abuse of discretion only when the decision of the trial court is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. … (b) With respect to persons having equal priority, the court shall select the person it considers best qualified to serve as guardian.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.S., Minor Child, M.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2016

On May 29, Father established his paternity of Child by affidavit, but Father did not live with Mother and Child. … Father clearly has not addressed his substance abuse issues.

Napoli v. State

451 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1983

Horvath clearly qualifies as a competent witness under these provisions and is not disqualified under any of the categories of Ind.Code § 84-1-14-5 (Burns 1978), which describes those who shall not be competent witnesses. … State, (1974) 262 Ind. 522 , 319 N.E.2d 140 , and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to question the witness to establish it. Here, that opportunity was clearly afforded.

Jamar Minor v. State of Indiana

36 N.E.3d 1065 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2015

Under the circumstances, Williams’s purported statement to Dulin does not qualify as a present sense impression. … Based upon the evidence presented, we cannot say that Minor has established such prejudice.

Rondon v. State

711 N.E.2d 506 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 25, 1999

Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause Rondon argues that the statutory exemption for mentally retarded individuals must apply retroactively to comport with the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause. … Although Rondon does not clearly develop his due process claim, it appears that he alleges a violation of substantive due process under the Federal Constitution. 12 In support of his claim, however, Rondon cites to several

Spencer County Assessor and Grass Township Assessor v. AK Steel Corporation

61 N.E.3d 406 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 5, 2016

AK Steel bears an extremely high burden of proof on this claim, however, as that statutory language is presumed constitutional until clearly shown otherwise. See Sims v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. … That provision states that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” IND.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

804 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2004

This is clearly an intolerable result. Id. at 334 (emphasis supplied). … CAC's ability to raise issues not raised below was clearly established by that case. *296 NIPSCO acknowledges this holding, but argues that the holding is impacted by the subsequent adoption of Indiana Appellate Rule 5(C)

Cope v. Cope

846 N.E.2d 360 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2006

the pension by direct payments from the DOD due to a provision commonly referred to as the 10/10 requirement (or the 10/10 rule). 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (d)(2) of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA) establishes … The Decree, which was entered by agreement of the parties, clearly awarded Anita a significant share of Charles's military pension.