Case law

Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.

963 N.E.2d 534 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2012

And here, The Star has clearly chosen to keep the identity of “DownWith-TheColts” confidential. The Star did not waive its privilege. … Publication has clearly been established in this case. Additionally, damages may be presumed in an action for defamation per se “ ‘as a natural and probable consequence’ of the per se defamation.” Id. (quoting Rambo v.

Nicklasch v. JLG Industries, Inc.

193 F.R.D. 570 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 1999

I conclude, therefore, that JLG has failed in its burden to establish that the incident reports are work product. 3 JLG argues that the incident reports are not relevant to — or, more precisely, that the plaintiffs have failed … Whether the parties may enter into an enforceable private agreement restricting access to the incident reports is not clearly answered by the Court of Appeals in Citizens First National Bank.

Merimee v. Brumfield

72 Ind. Dec. 765 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1979

Whether a police officer is immune from liability in an action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution under the Tort Claims Act. 2. … This raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was made to only express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.A.G. (Minor Child) C.L. (Mother) and A.G. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2018

“Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). … Moreover, DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that there is a reasonable probability the parent’s behavior will not change. Id.

Storey Oil Co. v. American States Insurance

622 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1993

The nexus is clearly apparent — without the alleged injury to the land, there would be no cause of action between Storey and American States. … In Lowe , the court clearly stated that the forum non conveniens provisions of Ind.Trial Rule 4.4(C) do not provide for intrastate transfers of venue. Id. at 772 .

Hooser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

177 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1959

In either instance, Rule 55 clearly states that if the employee fails to make his request with the proper officer within the prescribed period, “the request shall be barred.” Mr. Charles R. … Nevertheless, the court observes that as far as these three plaintiffs are concerned, the present claim (attempting to invalidate a part of the same dismissal) is clearly an after-thought inspired by the decision in Smith

Johnson v. State

423 N.E.2d 623 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1981

It cannot be contended that immunity from prosecution on two additional charges could have substantially increased Hicks’ motive for testifying. … The trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to order separate trials on the basis that a defendant may be found guilty by association where the evidence presents clearly defined and distinctive roles for each

Darnell Cleveland v. State of Indiana

129 N.E.3d 227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2019

Despite Cleveland’s insistence, there is no difference between raw marijuana or burnt marijuana for purposes of establishing probable cause. … [40] In summary, I have little trouble concluding that possession of a handgun without a license qualifies as misuse pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-47-3- 2.

City of Gary v. Redmond

489 N.E.2d 543 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1986

Section 1988 , the only provision under which failure to give prior notice might establish a cause of action is 42 U.S.C. … essential elements of a Section 1988 action as: "(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities

Jones v. Metropolitan School District

905 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 26, 2012

Baer is not immune from Mr. … Objective bad faith does not require a finding of malice or ill will; instead, reckless indifference to the law will qualify. Id.

Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.

11 N.E.3d 508 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2014

Indiana Insurance argues that there is no evidence to establish that it dealt with George and Patricia in bad faith. … While we agree with Patricia on the merits of this issue, this does not establish conscious wrongdoing on Indiana Insurance’s part. B.

Head v. COM'R, IND. DEPT. OF ENV. MGT.

626 N.E.2d 518 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1993

Clearly, Head has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. III. … An expert may be qualified by practical experience as well as by formal training and whether he is qualified as an expert is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Willis v. State (1987), Ind.

John F. Harris, III v. State of Indiana

981 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2013

establish. … Clearly, the escape conviction does not fall within subparagraph (b)(3)(C).

Orr v. State

472 N.E.2d 627 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Therefore, the evidence here clearly established a proper chain of custody. (2) Manner in Which Blood Test Was Conducted The second prong of Orr's challenge to the admissibility of the blood test results is the accuracy of … On the contrary, there was clearly evidence presented linking the defendant's intoxication to the accident.

Bret Lee Sisson v. State of Indiana

985 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012

Evidence was also presented that Sturdivant was initially uncooperative with police and that he had been granted immunity for his testimony. … Thus, the motion was clearly untimely under Crim. R. 12(D)(1).

Rodriguez v. ATF UC 3749

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2023

Spadafora and Scott’s Affirmative Defense 6 asserts qualified, absolute, and/or sovereign immunity. Spadafora and Scott withdrew their defenses of absolute and sovereign immunity. … Defendants have sufficiently pleaded an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. iv.

Keesling v. Keesling

42 Ind. App. 361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1908

The examination made by the court of the witnesses clearly shows that the fitness and ability of the grandparents to care for the child weré inquired into. … Appellant made no effort to show that said grandparents were not in every way qualified properly to rear the child, and there has not been a word of testimony pointed out to us that would indicate that the award of the court

Dean v. Dean

439 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1982

Pascevieh, and Trial Rule 52 permits a judgment based on special findings to be set aside only when clearly erroneous. … However, Indiana case law does not require that a trial court establish the value of each marital asset before distribution.

Krivanek v. State

252 Ind. 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 1969

Even without the long established rule that a juror’s affidavit will not be received to impeach his verdict, the affidavit in question is not sufficient to establish the jury misconduct and resulting prejudice of which the … As was mentioned above, the affidavit clearly establishes that none of the other jurors knew of the information prior to reaching their verdicts, and thus it could not have influenced their verdicts.

Illinois Steel Company v. Fuller

216 Ind. 180 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1939

It is asserted that the fact that the witness was a physician did not necessarily qualify him to testify as an expert on benzol poisoning; that it was not shown that the books which he had read were standard authorities or … To meet the charges of negligence the appellant showed, that it kept gas masks for use in its establishment whenever and wherever they were needed.