Case law

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

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

Fry, Excise Director v. Rosen

207 Ind. 409 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1934

and to a certain number of persons only authority to manufacture, sell at wholesale and import non-intoxicating alcoholic beverages in the State of Indiana, and to refuse said right and authority to other persons equally qualified … It is thoroughly established that traffic in alcoholic intoxicating beverages is a proper subject of legislative regulation under the police power of the state.

Northern Elec. Co., Inc. v. Torma

819 N.E.2d 417 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2004

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions … In order to qualify as a trade secret, the data compilation must be shown to have been the "subject of efforts that were reasonable under the cireumstances to maintain its secrecy."

Chidester v. City of Hobart

631 N.E.2d 908 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1994

. *910 Under that rule, issues covered by the special findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. T.R. 52(A). … Claypool (1896), 145 Ind. 590 , 44 N.E. 18 (limiting right of appeal to freeholders did not violate Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment or Privileges or Immunities Clause of Indiana Constitution).

Sharpsville Community Ambulance, Inc. v. Cynthia Gilbert and Randall Gilbert

47 N.E.3d 1265 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2015

The relevant discussion in Ayres concerns whether a volunteer fire department qualified as a governmental entity under the ITCA. … [17] Next, GHCS argued that because it operated pursuant to government control, it qualified as a political subdivision.

Head v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management

626 N.E.2d 518 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1993

Clearly, Head has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. III. … An expert may be qualified by practical experience as well as by formal training and whether he is qualified as an expert is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Willis v.

Long v. State

422 N.E.2d 284 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1981

It is clear that a confession is inadmissible if obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Ashby v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 316 , 354 N.E.2d 192 . … Defendant’s refused instruction dealt with the burden of proof the state must meet in establishing that a confession was voluntary.

Archer v. Ostemeier

56 Ind. App. 385 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1914

In the first part of the instruction the court does assume certain facts as proven, but all the facts so assumed were either agreed upon or established by undisputed evidence. … After so qualifying he stated in substance that such a wagon as the one used by appellant when appellee’s horse was struck, could be turned across the street without skidding by driving slowly, or if driving at a rapid rate

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.

Klinger v. CAYLOR

148 Ind. App. 508 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1971

Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to establish a justiciable issue and is therefore inadequate to establish a genuine issue for trial against defendants’ motion; therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted … Rusher (appellee) clearly establishes that the operation performed consisted of procedures in which no abdominal surgery was performed and plaintiff’s bowel was not cut or packed in any manner, and further, the doctor pointed

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)

County Board of Review v. Free Methodist Publishing House

145 Ind. App. 463 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1969

The central question involved in this appeal is whether appellee-Free Methodist Publishing House is qualified to receive a property tax exemption pursuant to Acts 1919, ch. 59, § 5, p. 198, as amended at the time pertinent … While the test remains somewhat subjective, it clearly will reject an exemption for a subsidiary which cannot establish that its operation is directly subservient to the religious purposes of its parent.

Bledsoe v. Fleming

712 N.E.2d 1067 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1999

Trial Rule 12(C) is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly entitle the moving party to judgment. Wildman v. National Fire and Marine Ins. … The law of res judicata is well-established in Indiana. It operates to preclude litigation regarding matters which have already been litigated.

Everette v. Everette

841 N.E.2d 210 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2006

Wife has established prima facie error in this regard, and the trial court is ordered to remedy this mistake upon remand. … By distributing the residence to Husband, the trial court clearly distributed to Husband the equity in the marital residence.

Horn v. State

176 Ind. App. 527 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 1978

The trial judge properly overruled Horn’s objections as our review of the transcript shows the remarks to have been clearly harmless. … As to the insufficient foundation contention, Horn argues that the police officer who tested the knife for blood was not qualified as an expert.

Rayl v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

87 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2000

Rayl also attempts to show pretext by alleging that FWCS has failed to establish that he was not qualified for the Aide positions. However, Rayl misplaces the burden on this issue. … FWCS argues that Rayl's own subjective belief that he is qualified is insufficient to establish a prima facie case under Fortier v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 161 F.3d 1106, 1114 (7th Cir.1998).

State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service v. Settlers Life Insurance Company

5 N.E.3d 1170 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2014

The Pulaski County DFR determined that the assignment of the policy would not qualify as an excluded resource under Medicaid. … Taylor wrote that “[u]nder Wisconsin law, a Life Insurance Funded Burial Contract is valid only when, among other items, it is assigned to a ‘funeral director or operator of a funeral establishment’” and concluded that

Common Cause, Inc. v. State

691 N.E.2d 1358 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1998

The Court held that such actions were within the scope of the Rhode Island legislature’s legitimate legislative functions, and therefore were shielded by legislative immunity. … We discern no reason to reformulate what Judge Metz has so clearly and articulately stated. Accordingly, we adopt the quoted portions of his Findings and Conclusions.

Crawford v. King

54 Ind. 6 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1876

Wayne county, Indiana; that after the death of said Joseph King, on the 20th day of June, 1868, John Maxwell was duly appointed, by the clerk of Wayne common pleas court, administrator of said decedent’s estate, and was qualified … Dunn, 7 Ind. 81 , this court held the rule to be clearly established, that “where a specific lien or substantial benefit is surrendered, upon the express promise of a third person to pay a debt, it is an original undertaking