Case law

In Re Vale

204 B.R. 716 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1996

, does clearly reflect income. … As the Miller court stated: The standards applicable to determining the validity of Treasury regulations are well established.

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.

Stack v. Allstate Insurance

606 F. Supp. 472 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 1985

Stack admits giving certain discounts upon the representations or promises of clients that they qualified or would immediately purchase items to qualify for the discounts. … The undisputed facts clearly show that both parties failed to comply with the provisions of the contract noted above.

Ray v. St. John's Health Care Corp.

582 N.E.2d 464 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1991

Moreover, [the immunity provisions of] I.C. § 34-4-12.6-3 support[ ] our determination. … The immunity provision protects ‘evaluation of patient care,’ not contractual arrangements by a hospital’s board of directors.” 580 N.E.2d at 357 .

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.

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

A.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

45 N.E.3d 471 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2015

The judgment will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or. the conclusions do not support the judgment. In re R. … The judgment is not clearly erroneous. III.

Perkins v. Rogers

35 Ind. 124 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1871

The claimants here are not aliens, they are not technically enemies, they are only ‘ enemies in a qualified sense,’ as Justice Nelson has correctly said. … The foregoing authorities clearly establish the following propositions.

Sajda v. Brewton

265 F.R.D. 334 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 20, 2009

To meet the qualified immunity from discovery based on Rule 26(b)(3), the materials sought must be: “(1) documents and tangible things; (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; and (3) by or for a party or … Materials or investigative reports developed in the ordinary course of business do not qualify as work product.

Fowler v. State

809 N.E.2d 960 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2004

From these generalities, the Court extrapolated that statements made during a police "interrogation" would qualify as "testimonial" statements. Id. … We conclude this choice of words clearly indicates that police "interrogation" is not the same as, and is much narrower than, police "questioning."

Osborne v. Wenger

572 N.E.2d 1343 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1991

The objection was that no foundation had been laid during the deposition to qualify the doctor as an expert to give such an opinion. … [Citations omitted] We will reverse the trial court only when the trial court's judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. We find no abuse of discretion.

State v. Pollard

908 N.E.2d 1145 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2009

Under this test the court must first determine whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings. Id. … We are persuaded the first Mendoza-Martines factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Act as punitive when applied to Pollard. 2.

Richard Brown and Janet Brown v. City of Valparaiso, Indiana

67 N.E.3d 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2016

After establishing the Indiana Department of Transportation as the overseeing agency and setting forth various requirements and restrictions for approaches, the chapter indicates that a person who … Moreover, the structure of Section 1(d) reads largely as a grant of immunity to hospitals that lose records due to natural disasters.

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.

Hall v. Miami Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2025

Defendants also contend that they have qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right. McAllister v.

State v. Eubanks

729 N.E.2d 201 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 2000

The prosecutor did not offer either witness immunity pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-37-3-1, 7 and the questioning of the witnesses occurred in the presence of the jury. … First, Eubanks’ counsel was clearly ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s actions in calling Beverly and Worl to *211 testify.

DeWeese v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

120 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2000

This contradicts Bush’s testimony which clearly indicates that such a degree was not required. … [or] evidence indicating that there is something ‘fishy’ about the facts of the case at hand;’ or (2) ‘the person ultimately hired was clearly less qualified than the plaintiff, the hiring authority expressed intense interest

Alsman v. Matthews

125 Ind. App. 132 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1954

The proceedings and determination of the board are immune from collateral attack in this action. … The evidence, and permissible inferences deductible therefrom, clearly shows that appellees’ use of the way from May, 1930 to June 25, 1951, was continuous, uninterrupted, with claim of right, and with the knowledge and acquiescence

BIDDLE v. PERTORIUS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2024

CODE § 34– 13–3–5(a).4 To sue a government employee personally, the plaintiff "must allege that an act or omission of the employee that causes a loss is: (1) criminal; (2) clearly 1 "Mr. … Johnson's allegation that Officer Brown's conduct was willful and wanton." 2 "These disputed facts precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and the same analysis holds true here

Sans v. Monticello Insurance

718 N.E.2d 814 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1999

Specifically, while in the United States Army, Elkins was trained and qualified in the use of a .45 caliber pistol. … The judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact. Id.