Case law

Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Siegel

625 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 2, 1986

The fact that an official at Global told Campton that Ackerman could qualify for coverage if he received five additional hours of instruction is completely irrelevant to what Ackerman would need to do to qualify under the … These admissions clearly establish that the $46.00 per hour fee was a “charge” — that is, a payment beyond direct operating costs— which takes the February 13, 1983 use of the plane outside of the limits of the “Pleasure

Donaldson v. State

904 N.E.2d 294 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2009

This notice listed ten of Donaldson's "qualifying traffic offenses" which had occurred between 1997 and 2005, and stated that Donaldson had additional qualifying offenses. … An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id.

Knutson v. State Ex Rel. Seberger

239 Ind. 656 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1959

The ordinance under authority of the statute purported to establish by reference certain standards for the construction of streets, sewers, etc. for subdivisions as a condition precedent to their approval. … subdivision control ordinance was fatally defective 5 for the reason that it purported to incorporate *662 by reference “a non existent Street and Thoroughfare Plan,” and that the Plan Commission of the town of Dyer was not qualified

Crist v. K-Mart Corp.

653 N.E.2d 140 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1995

Dorsey Corp. (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 1191 , trans. denied, we considered the question of who qualifies as a seller within the meaning of the Act. … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous “when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them.” Id.

Sweeney v. State

886 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2008

Supreme Court precedent clearly established such a rule. Here, it is clear that the Supreme Court has not taken the step that Sweeney needs. … Indeed, as far as we can tell, the Supreme Court has not mentioned effective assistance of counsel (in the Strickland sense) and the Fifth Amendment in the same breath, let alone set forth a clearly established right to that

Wilson v. State

169 Ind. App. 297 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 1976

While we doubt that the paycheck in question qualifies as a public record within the purview of this statute, we need not so decide. … We think the position taken by McCormick and the federal rules is proper and clearly supported by the decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Court of this state.

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 2025

He asserts that allowing the litigation to proceed while the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is pending will "effectively eradicate the basic thrust of [his] qualified immunity defense." … If the Supreme Court affirms the Seventh Circuit's decision, it will provide important guidance on the state-created danger exception and on qualified immunity issues.

Graymor Properties LLC v. Battery Properties, Inc.; CMW International, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2026

See NutraSweet Co., 227 F.3d at 791 (holding that district court did not clearly err in concluding that state environmental agency's oversight in cleanup established substantial compliance with the NCP). … Subsection 18(g) provides that immunity from suit "does not apply if: (1) the applicant fails to file a proposed voluntary remediation work plan within the time period established in section 8(a)(8) of this chapter."

Patterson v. State

729 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2000

This testimony was sufficient to establish that the scientific principles underlying PCR analysis are sound and that Black was qualified to testify. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. … Further, DNA evidence established that Patterson’s blood was on the window curtain inside Maciejewski’s home. This evidence is sufficient to establish that Patterson committed the crime of residential entry.

Ellingham v. Dye

178 Ind. 336 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1912

The decisions of this court have not positively and clearly settled the question. In Governor v. … It might with equal right and perhaps with greater propriety, have made the board consist of the Secretary of State and two qualified electors, or any other subordinate state officer, or three qualified electors to be appointed

Whipple v. State

523 N.E.2d 1363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1988

Snyder had indicated to the police officers that he had an appointment that day with an attorney with reference to establishing a guardianship over Penny and Dale. … The record clearly indicates Snyder was advised of defendant's Miranda rights, understood them, and voluntarily waived them.

City of Gary v. Major

822 N.E.2d 165 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2005

In this case the trial court’s order required the executive branch of government of the City of Gary “to establish a fair and equitable procedure for the bidding and awarding of towing contracts to qualified towing … Clearly it did not, and the City makes no credible claim to the contrary.

Jordan v. Johnson

138 Ind. App. 53 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1965

The Lake Juvenile Court erred in sustaining appellee’s Demurrer to appellant’s Petition to Set Aside; said petition of appellant clearly and directly stated sufficient facts to set aside the prior order and judgment of paternity … It further qualifies since this fact was presented within the two years allotted by the above statute. However, the question remains as to what is the proper procedure under the statute.

Gillenwater v. Madison & Indianapolis Railroad

5 Ind. 339 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1854

The ruling is thus qualified. “ Considering it as a nice question, we would add a caution as to any hasty application of the rule to cases not clearly within the same principle. … It strongly implies a' suspicion of the correctness of the principle sought to be established. Since then, however, (1842), the Courts of New-York have followed the same lead. Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill 592 .— Coon v.

Moore v. General Motors Corp., Delco Remy Div.

684 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 4, 1988

In this instance, the Comparative Fault Act clearly establishes, in plain language, that the plaintiff is required to prove a prima facie case of negligence in order to recover from any defendant. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to introduce evidence to contest the elements of a negligence claim, even if that evidence is evidence of causation attributable to a party or parties which do not qualify as nonparties

South Bend Community School Corp. v. Lucas

881 N.E.2d 30 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2008

Contrary to the [ALJ’s] findings, the Head Start program clearly does not *32 meet the definition for a “school,” because it is a federal program that is not accredited by the Indiana state board of education nor does it … Head Start is a public entity established pursuant to an agreement between twelve public school corporations.

Johnson v. Jacobs

970 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2011

As set forth above, the undisputed designated evidence in this case established that Eric should have taken Emily to school on March 5, 2007. … More particularly, the publication that Beth submitted clearly states that the materials are only proposals, and those documents provide that it was simply recommending that TSA develop a plan for implementing a *674 risk

Citizens National Bank of Whitley County v. Stasell

77 Ind. Dec. 596 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1980

It is a well settled rule in Indiana that a deed to a husband and wife without qualifying language vests them with a tenancy by the entireties. Pension Fund of Disciples of Christ v. … Upon Eva Martin’s death, the 60 acres was clearly property of another, Charles Martin.

Hare v. State

467 N.E.2d 7 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1984

The burden rests with the defendant to establish either the high probability or existence of such widespread bias in the community that an impartial jury cannot be obtained. Haybron v. … 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.

Merritt v. State

822 N.E.2d 642 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2005

To qualify as a fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 , 755 (Ind.2002) (quoting Willey v. … The facts of this case establish that cocaine was found in Merritt's purse, which was located on the center console in between her driver's seat and the front passenger's seat.