Case law

State Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Scherer

221 Ind. 92 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1943

Section 63-1306, Bums’ 1933, § 10707, Baldwin’s 1934, provides that the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination shall establish “a schedule of the minimum requirements which must be complied with by applicants … We have concluded, however, that the only jurisdiction of the court was to review the decision of the board, *101 and that the decision of the board must be sustained if it was supported by substantial evidence, which it clearly

Andy Mohr West d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, and TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Office of the Ind. Secretary of State, Auto Dealer Services Div.

54 N.E.3d 349 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2016

exists for establishing or relocating a dealership). … terms: “‘proposed’ 1 Butler is located over seven miles from the site, Tom Wood sixteen miles, and Andy Mohr twenty-four miles. 4 dealers and ‘relocated’ dealers, clearly

Jay Classroom Teachers Association v. Jay School Corporation and Indiana Education Employment Relations Board

55 N.E.3d 813 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 21, 2016

The trial court added that it was not unreasonable for a school superintendent to ■ have the authority “to hire qualified employees and have the flexibility to offer attractive compensation for the potential new hires in … to Establish Salaries.

Anderson Federation of Teachers Local 519 v. SCHOOL CITY OF ANDERSON

252 Ind. 558 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1969

On the face of it, this statute clearly applies to this controversy. … in tort law are equally valid for discarding sovereign immunity in the area of statutory construction.

Cobbs v. Freeman-Wilson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that Defendants Freeman-Wilson, Allen, and Hedrick are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S.

KTP Ex Rel. ASP v. Atchison

848 N.E.2d 280 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

s birth and subsequent hospitalization. [4] On October 9, 2003, the State filed a petition to establish paternity. … On November 1, 2004, in an order establishing paternity and child support, the court found that Atchison admitted paternity and established Atchison as the biological father of K.T.P.

Williams v. Tharp

934 N.E.2d 1203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2010

The supreme court determined that Williams and Kelsey had failed to establish a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Tharp knew that his *1206 statements were false and thus abused the qualified privilege. … The trial court did not err in finding a qualified privilege established as a matter of law, thereby precluding the plaintiffs' claim for defamation.

William M. Belcher v. Catherine Kroczek, D.D.S.

13 N.E.3d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2014

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them. Coffman v. Olson & Co., P.C., 872 N.E.2d 145, 147 (Ind. Ct. … We therefore conclude that they are not chattels.3 Goodwill, however, may qualify as chattel. There are two types of goodwill: enterprise goodwill and professional goodwill.

Franklin v. Hunt

132 Ind. App. 575 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1961

There appear no entries or proceedings of any kind to show or establish that any change of venue was ever taken by either party from the said judge, John *577 H. Brubaker, or that the said J. … Richard Kemper was ever in any manner selected or qualified as a special judge in said cause. Insofar as the record manifests, the said J.

United States v. Clark County, Indiana

234 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2002

In order to establish claim preclusion under Indiana law, the proponent must establish that: (1) the former judgment was issued by a court with jurisdiction; (2) the matter now in issue was or might have been determined in … Our review of the record establishes clearly that the taxes assessed in this case were assessed directly against ICI. We do not perceive any factual dispute between the parties in this regard.

L.O. ex rel. D.O. v. East Allen County School Corp.

58 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2014

L.O. did not meet her burden or persuasion to establish that the School has not provided “highly qualified teachers” as required by provisions of Indiana law to implement her IEP. (658; 14.) Issue 13. … L.O. asserts the order is supportable solely by the uncontradicted testimony of her parents that because of her compromised immune system, she needs access to hand sanitizers at frequent times.

Stewardson v. Cass County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and, second, that the right was clearly established at the time of the … Clearly established law must be “particularized” to the facts of a case, Anderson v.

General Collections, Inc. v. Ochoa

546 N.E.2d 113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1989

General Collections contends on appeal that the evidence produced during the hearing on Ochoa’s motion to set aside default and motion to dismiss proceedings supplemental was so conclusive in establishing Ochoa’s identity … as the subject judgment debtor as to render the trial court’s determination to the contrary clearly erroneous.

Lemmon v. Harris

949 N.E.2d 803 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2011

Under this test, we first determine whether the Legislature meant the Act to establish civil proceedings. Id. If instead its intention was to impose punishment, then the inquiry ends. Id. … And, legislative intent cannot clearly be discerned from the location of the statutes within the Code.

Hunter v. State

172 Ind. App. 397 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1977

Hanna (1968), 143 Ind. 490 , 241 N.E.2d 376 which discusses interspousal immunity with approval. The Supreme Court abolished interspousal immunity in Brooks v. Robinson (1972), 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794 . … This is clearly not a correct statement of the law. Indiana maintains a parent-child immunity in tort actions. Vaughan v. Vaughan (1974), 161 Ind. App. 497 , 316 N.E.2d 455 .

Charles Aillones v. Glen D. Minton

77 N.E.3d 196 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if its decision is without reason or is based … Code § 25-23-1-7(a)(9)(B) (providing that Board of Nursing shall establish, with the approval of the medical licensing board, the requirements that an advanced practice nurse must meet to be granted authority

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Convenient Industries of America, Inc.

157 Ind. App. 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1973

All of the corporations in Holland were qualified to do business in Indiana. One such corporaton established sales offices within the state and maintained a staff of employees who solicited sales within Indiana. … It was, we think, clearly a single contract, whereby Fort Pitt committed and obligated itself for the entire result.” 227 Ind. 538, 544 .

MERCADO v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HOSPITAL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 28, 2022

In any event, the Medical Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. "A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct.

Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc.

734 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2000

R. 702 requires that the expert be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” … In Femco , it was established that the plaintiff had been exposed to the substance at issue. Id. at 791 .

Thiellen v. Graves

530 N.E.2d 765 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1988

Clearly, Thiellen’s injuries did “aris[e] out of and in the course of [his] employment.” 3 The phrase “in the course *767 of employment” refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident took place. … However, such a connection is established when the accident arises out of a risk which is a reasonably prudent person might comprehend as incidental to the work. Id.