Case law

David L. Newson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

86 N.E.3d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2017

precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or it is a misinterpretation of the law. Blount v.

Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven

755 N.E.2d 624 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2001

As such, CWMI qualifies as both a remonstrator and as a taxpayer of the annexing city. … IC. § 36-4-3-7(a) establishes that the annexation ordinance cannot take effect until sixty days after its publication.

Alexander v. City of South Bend

256 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 4, 2003

To state a claim for relief in a § 1983 action, Plaintiff must establish that Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law. 42 U.S.C … immunity.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of Je.Q., Ja.Q., and N.Q., Children, and T.Q.(Mother) & A.Q. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

Standard of Review [12] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights proceedings is well established. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229-30.

Coleman v. Wexford of Indiana LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2023

Last, all defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[a]t no time did any of these Defendants render medical care that was so clearly a violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights that any … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity.

Stanton v. Price

178 Ind. App. 685 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1978

She then decided to return to school in order to earn a degree in nursing which would qualify her for a more rewarding career. … Our ruling establishes the validity of a state work program as one means of helping AFDC recipients return to gainful employment.

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.

United States v. Church

736 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 17, 1990

The facts clearly establish that the VA was relieved of its obligation as guarantor on Church’s loan by the Wisconsin VA’s failure to proceed against Church for personal liability after the VA notified the Wisconsin VA in … The regulations promulgated by the VA itself establish that they have no right to indemnification in this case.

State v. Gillespie

428 N.E.2d 1338 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1981

When the issue of guilt is properly before the trial court, Gillespie could possibly present this evidence at trial to establish a defense. … “Impossibility” is clearly not a viable defense in Indiana.

Pichon v. Martin

35 Ind. App. 167 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1905

Appellees filed a petition before the board of commissioners of Allen county, Indiana, to lay out and establish a public highway. Viewers were appointed, who made a favorable report. … Mason qualified as his executor, and as such is prosecuting this appeal, as are also the devisees of John B. Mason.

Koscuisko County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

248 Ind. 482 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1967

Code, under certain conditions, waived its immunity to suit. … The mortgagee did not choose to intervene, although it had ample notice of the litigation, as the record clearly shows.

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."

Morton v. Gaffield

51 Ind. App. 28 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1912

reward for the finding or procuring by one person, of a purchaser for the real estate of another, shall be valid, unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the owner of such real estate or his legally appointed and qualified … This letter clearly recognizes some authority in appellee over the farm of appellant, and clearly presumes that “my place” is a sufficient designation fully to advise appellee as to the place meant.

Dommer v. Dommer

829 N.E.2d 125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2005

Specifically, [husband] argues an interspousal immunity exception to Title III exists. … Subsection (b) provides immunity to persons relying in good faith on a warrant or extension of a warrant.

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.

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.

Brandon v. State

272 Ind. 92 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1979

Although it is true that there was a requirement established in Mata v. … It has already been clearly established in this state that a duplicate of a document is admissible in evidence “to the same extent as an original unless a genuine issue is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or

Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

981 N.E.2d 1202 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2012

The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinter- preted the law." State v. … "To prove bad faith, the plaintiff must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the insurer had knowledge that there was no legitimate basis for denying liability." Freidline v. Shelby Ins.

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.

Wright v. State

266 Ind. 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1977

A physician qualified as an expert witness may properly answer hypothetical questions concerning cause of death based upon facts in evidence. Hicks v. … Properly qualified as an expert in pathology, the witness was correctly permitted to testify.