Case law

DOE v. TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 26, 2020

State "officers are entitled to qualified immun- ity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.'" … The Court will reserve ruling on whether Defendants have qualified immunity until a later stage in litigation.

In Re IA

903 N.E.2d 146 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

The trial court's judgment will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … The DCS has established a reasonable probability that Mother will not change regarding I.A.

Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission

495 N.E.2d 779 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1986

The Commission also has authority to establish and review utility rates. … Section 9 defines "order" as "an agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privi *785 leges, immunities, or other legal interests of one (1) or more specific persons."

Tamela J Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2026

We reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … Code § 35-33-5-2(b) provides: “When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either: (1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing

Reynolds v. State, ex rel. Titus

61 Ind. 392 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1878

In this position counsel are so clearly right, in our opinion, that we deem it unnecessary to cite their authorities in its support. … That this is so is abundantly and clearly shown, we think, by the statute of this State on the subject of elections.

McGill v. State

465 N.E.2d 211 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1984

In order to establish that one crime is an included offense of another, one must conclude that it “(1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the … Thus, it is doubtful that persons could be successfully prosecuted for criminal deviate conduct under subsection (b) for sexual intercourse, as this defeats the ‘spousal immunity’ concept in rape.” 2 .

Evansville Courier Company Inc. v. Vanderburgh County Assessor

78 N.E.3d 746 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 5, 2017

Additionally: in order to qualify for “abnormal obsolescence,” the obsolescence must be of a “non-recurring nature.” … Accordingly, the Court will reverse only if the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, privilege, or immunity

Ashlin Transportation Services, Inc. v. Indiana Unemployment Insurance Board

637 N.E.2d 162 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1994

Clearly, the employees or personnel of a company are included within an accepted definition of “organization” or “trade.” … In administering the program, IDETS collects unemployment tax contributions from “employing units” which qualify as employers under the Act.

Myers v. Coats

966 N.E.2d 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

The undisputed facts here establish that the DOC determines whether an incarcerated individual belongs on the Registry and also handles complaints about mistaken sex offender registrations. … Having found this issue dispositive, we need not address the parties' arguments concerning whether Coats’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations or whether Myers is entitled to qualified immunity.

Long v. State

743 N.E.2d 253 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2001

Because the facts of this case do not qualify for class B felony treatment, we find that the criminal confinement conviction should be imposed as a class D felony. … facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.

Cameron v. Metcuz

705 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 1989

Such language is permissive and clearly leaves unfettered discretion with Indiana health officials. … The initial determination is clearly discretionary with health officials. The legislature has merely established procedural guidelines to channel official discretion. See Culbert, 834 F.2d at 629 .

Hopkins v. State

579 N.E.2d 1297 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1991

Any battle of qualified experts, as in the instant case, or other conflict as to the reliability of evidence is to be resolved by the trier of fact, see Orr v. … Clearly, the trial court was justified in finding the State's experts qualified.

Halbe v. Weinberg

717 N.E.2d 876 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 2000

The record does not clearly disclose whether or not Dr. Weinberg disputes the existence of these calls. … Weinberg's un-contradicted affidavit establishes that he did, in fact, use saline implants.” (Br. Ct.App. at 29.)

Collins v. State

491 N.E.2d 1020 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1986

A breathalyzer test was administered by Trooper Bube, a qualified operator, about twenty minutes after the initial stop, and revealed Collins's blood alcohol to be .12%. … State (1983), Ind.App., 451 N.E.2d 57 . 4 The evidence clearly established that Collins had a prior conviction sufficient to bring the charge within the purview of Ind.Code § 9-11-2-8, thereby enhancing the offense to a class

Monarch Steel Co. v. State of Indiana Tax Commissioners

545 N.E.2d 1148 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 25, 1989

"A presumption is raised that the Legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears an amendment was made only to express more clearly the original intention of the Legislature." … If the taxpayer uses the allocation method, he shall keep records which adequately establish the validity of the allocation. IC 6-1.1-10-29.5 (emphasis added).

Righter v. Keaton

170 Ind. 461 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 1908

to sign a rerhonstrance against the establishing of said proposed arm. … Such a proceeding would not only be in violation of the Constitution, but is clearly forbidden by the statute.

Austill v. State

745 N.E.2d 859 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2001

It is the State's contention that the trial court properly denied Austill's Motion to Dismiss because he failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the two electric blasting caps, wire, and a battery operated detonation … When construing statutes, we give words and phrases their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning unless some contrary purpose is clearly shown. Smithhart v. State, 591 N.E.2d 149, 151 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).

McNall v. Farmers Insurance Group

181 Ind. App. 501 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1979

The McNalls filed suit against Farmers Insurance to establish the existence of coverage, the status of Waterson as an uninsured motorist, his liability and the amount of damages. … Error in assessment is established if, as in the present case, it clearly appears from uncontradicted evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff.” 178 N.E. at

Cutter v. State

725 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2000

Expert Testimony Cutter also claims that the pathologist was not qualified to testify regarding the dilated state of Berry=s vagina.[1] At trial, the State asked Dr. … , is clearly insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Estate of Vandam v. Daniels

278 F.R.D. 415 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 23, 2011

In 1974, soon after the Indiana Supreme Court’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in Campbell v. … It is unclear to us at this time whether all three of these factors can be established.