Case law

Danny Sims v. Andrew Pappas and Melissa Pappas

61 N.E.3d 1285 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2016

A review of the record, especially closing arguments, 8 makes clear that the evidence of Sims’s prior offenses was admitted for the sole purpose of establishing punitive damages. … In rebuttal, plaintiffs’ counsel discussed the prior offenses in a bit more depth, as quoted by the majority, but counsel qualified his statements: "Again, that goes to the punitive and that’s up to you guys.”

Impink v. City of Indianapolis, Board of Public Works

612 N.E.2d 1125 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 6, 1993

Notwithstanding their waiver of this issue, 1.C. 34-4-17.5-1 clearly requires: Sec. 1. … Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), 473 U.S. 172 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (establishing a two-prong test to determine whether a taking claim is ripe for adjudication).

Henry v. Moberly

6 Ind. App. 490 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1893

Where the occasion is one of qualified privilege. … In this case the words set out in the complaint, if false, as therein alleged, are clearly libelous, unless justified, under the circumstances stated, by the privileges of the occasion. Pat chell v. Jaqua, 6 Ind.

Hendry v. GTE North, Inc.

896 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 1995

Initially, however, the Plaintiff has the burden to establish that she is "disabled" and "qualified" to perform the essential functions of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodation, Dutton v. … Qualified Individual Next, Hendry must either establish, or raise an issue of fact about, whether she was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job at GTE with or without

Robert Lynn Co. v. Town of Clarksville Board of Zoning Appeals

867 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2007

However, the zoning ordinance may establish a stricter standard than the “practical difficulties” standard prescribed by this subdivision. … (b) The subdivision control ordinance must specify the standards by which the commission determines whether a plat qualifies for primary approval.

Heritage Mutual Insurance v. Advanced Polymer Technology, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 2d 913 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 16, 2000

Additionally, the policy established Heritage’s “duty to defend any suit seeking those damages.” Id. (emphasis in original). … Environ clearly referred to ownership rights with its reference to title (e.g.

Hinesley-Petry v. Petry

894 N.E.2d 277 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2008

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. Carmichael v. … authorization for the divorce court to order either *281 or both parents to pay sums toward their child’s college education constitutes a reasonable manner in which to enforce the expectation that most families would encourage them qualified

In re Haughee

795 N.E.2d 450 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2003

find that this alone does not clearly and convincingly establish a violation of Admis.Dise.R. 23(26)(b). … We find that the testimony and other evidence submitted clearly and convineingly establish that by entering into the agreement to represent the woman, the respondent "undertook a new legal matter" after he had received notice

Lutz v. Purdue University

133 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2001

Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that sovereign immunity is limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. … These positions clearly belie the assertion that Lutz has been blacklisted from his chosen field.

Miller Brewing Co. v. Bartholemew County Beverage Co.

674 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1996

However, qualifying sales made outside a distributor’s APR would entitle the distributor to only one-third of the intra-APR reimbursement amount. … Miller’s understanding of Rule 28 is clearly at odds with the understanding the court finds to be mandated by its language, underlying policy and strong legislative intent.

VERMILLION v. FRANCUM

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2023

Francum violated his First Amendment rights, the Court need not address qualified immunity and the argument that those rights were not clearly established. … Turney violated his First Amendment rights, the Court need not address qualified immunity and their argument that those rights were not clearly established.

Beaty Construction, Inc. v. Board of Safety Review

912 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2009

The Board also established the availability of feasible means to abate the hazard. … This is clearly contrary to the requirements of the applicable regulation.

Johnson v. State

960 N.E.2d 844 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2012

We review factual findings of a post-conviction court under a “clearly erroneous” standard but do not defer to any legal conclusions. Id. … In the latter scenario, a sufficient factual basis may be established by evidence aside from a defendant’s statements. Id.

Koch v. Wix

108 Ind. App. 20 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1940

In construing a will, the words used by a testator are to be given their ordinary well-settled meaning, unless it clearly appears from the will itself that the intention is otherwise. … of the testator’s death, and when, as in the instant case, a testator makes a bequest to persons not designated by name, but designated only by a mode or method of identification, then it is only such individuals as can qualify

Dickerson v. State

257 Ind. 562 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1972

Since the State is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado … A signature obtained with the instructions given by Officer Brunkhart is' clearly not sufficient to- indicate a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. West

812 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2004

Whether Employees' claims against IDEM are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity; II. … Clearly there has been no prejudice to [the professor] in the presentation of the merits of his case, and in fact, he claims none.

Royal Academy of Beauty Culture & Royal Beauty Shop, Inc. v. Wallace

226 Ind. 383 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1948

suits alleging fraud which aggregate claims exceeded $15,000; (2) Defendant’s school did not meet the requirements of the State of West Virginia for the training of students, although defendant advertised its students could qualify … The evidence clearly failed to prove insolvency. United States v. Anderson Co. (1941), 119 F. 2d 343, 345 ; Garvin, Rec. v. Chadwick Realty Corp. *387 (1937), 212 Ind. 499, 507 , 9 N. E. 2d 268 ; Chicago, etc., R.

Brown v. State

271 Ind. 129 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1979

He contends that the document was introduced merely as an attempt to establish that appellant’s earlier cooperation was voluntary. This theory is not supported by the record. … Any alleged lack of reliability can be brought out on cross-examination, and, as long as the expert is otherwise qualified, should go to weight of the evidence and not its competency.

Sandra M. Bowers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2016

She testified that she would have to sell drugs regularly to qualify as a drug dealer, that she did not sell drugs “very often,” and that she sold drugs “[e]very couple of days.” Id. at 27. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record

Aafco Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Publications, Inc.

162 Ind. App. 671 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1974

Does the qualified constitutional privilege announced in New York Times v. Sullivan and Rosenbloom v. … For example, a state legislator in Indiana is immune from liability even if he publishes defamatory material with an improper motive and with knowledge of its falsity (absolute privilege). IND. CONST., Art. 4, § 8.