Case law

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 .

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.

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 .

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Co.

160 Ind. App. 367 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1974

A final determination that the statements in question were not constitutionally protected was made before any prior restraints were established. … One of the basic principles in the area of prior restraint was firmly established in Near as follows: “. . .

State Ex Rel. Mta v. Ind. Rev. Bd.

144 Ind. App. 63 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1968

It is, therefore, clearly established that the Governor did, in fact, accept this group of House Enrolled Acts, including No. 1818, the one in question. … SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

Deaconess Hospital, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Public Welfare

632 N.E.2d 732 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1994

Suicidal ideation as such is not considered emergency qualifying crite-rig...." . Record at 120 (emphasis added). … The State DPW clearly based its decision on unwritten qualifying emergency medical criteria.

KEITH v. MASON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2022

He must also point to evidence to show that the defendants violated a right that was "clearly established" at the time of the incident. Stockton, 44 F.4th at 620. … And even if a reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Marvin v. King

734 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1990

Finally, it should be noted that the Court’s prior ruling granting summary judgment for the individual defendants on the qualified immunity issue remains intact. … Certainly it was not clearly established in January of 1985 that the defendants’ actions would violate Marvin’s constitutional rights. 2.

Wenzel v. Hopper & Galliher, P.C.

779 N.E.2d 30 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2002

The Judgment will be reversed if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … A "qualified person" under the Act is an individual "that is eligible under this article to own shares issued by a professional corporation." Ind.Code § 23-1.5-1-12.

Brookins v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

90 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 2000

Qualified Individual with a Disability In order to succeed in making an ADA reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must establish first that he was “a qualified individual with a disability.” Id. … Corp., 101 F.3d 519 , 525 (7th Cir.1996) (“Recovery under the ADA also requires a plaintiff to establish she is a qualified individual with a disability.”)).

Wyzard v. Wyzard

771 N.E.2d 754 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2002

Testimony at the hearing established that should Husband die before retiring, his estate would only receive the $32,409.58 he contributed to the Fund; however, if Husband was married, his wife would receive 60% of his benefits … (e) [ ] Husband's benefits are exempt from attachment, garnishment, judicial process such as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and he may not transfer, assign or sell his benefits. (£) There is no pre-retirement survivor

Beckerman v. Gordon

614 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 1993

Beckerman is entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan Law? *612 DECISION PARTIES' CONTENTIONS — Dr. … The undisputed facts established that Mary Ann's condition was not the result of a sudden calamitous event of the type contemplated by the legislature. Record 104-5.

Trump Indiana, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

790 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 16, 2003

Tax Ct.2000) (holding that to qualify for the exemption, the movement, transportation, or carrying must be for consideration), review denied. … The Department, on the other hand, argues that the penalty is warranted because Trump failed to pay sales or use tax on items clearly subject to those taxes.

Newman v. JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ASSN.

875 N.E.2d 729 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2007

As our Supreme Court held in Trail, “merely making [ ] an accusation does not establish a [defamation] claim sufficiently to permit courts to determine its legal legitimacy. … In order to defeat summary judgment, the burden is on Newman to establish that the qualified privilege was abused. Cortez v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., 827 N.E.2d 1223, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2005).

John E. Moriarity and Mae E. Moriarity v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

113 N.E.3d 614 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2019

To the contrary, we have a well-established rule to deal with these situations: “[u]ndefined words . . . are given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning.” … It clearly knows how to define words for the Act, see 312 Ind. Admin. Code 1-1- 21(a) (2018), http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03120/A00010.PDF?

Long v. Anderson University

204 F.R.D. 129 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2001

The burden is on the discovery opponent to establish that the work product doctrine immunizes the documents at issue from discovery. Allen v. Chicago Transit Authority, 198 F.R.D. 495, 499 (N.D.Ill.2001), citing U.S. v. … party to “demarcate a set of documents clearly entitled [to the privilege] without further inquiry to confidential status.”).

State of Indiana v. Kinshasha Johnson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2025

The charging information and supporting judicial records clearly alleged the required facts. … Further, “‘it is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at

Douglas Kirby v. State of Indiana

83 N.E.3d 1237 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

Given these facts, we are persuaded that this factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Statute as punitive as applied to Kirby. 2. … As such, this factor clearly favors treating the Statute as non-punitive as applied to Kirby. 7.

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation

212 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2002

As such, Pain does not establish that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on this point. 8 Contrary to Defendants’ argument, In re Dow Coming Corp., 255 B.R. 445, 525-26 (E.D.Mich.2000) establishes only … Instead, we struck a middle ground between applying no deference at all and requiring that the factors "clearly point towards” trial in the alternative forum.

Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Indiana Horse Racing Commission

827 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2005

In such a situation, we give the trial court’s factual findings and judgment deference, and we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … in this case, Indiana Downs is contesting an order because the IHRC's action not only has retrospective application, but also it is directed specifically at Indiana Downs and Hoosier Parks as the only two entities that qualified