Case law

Chism v. State

813 N.E.2d 402 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2004

Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in establishing conditions of probation. Id. Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State, 730 N.E.2d 705, 708 (Ind.2000), reh'g denied.

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

Buggs v. McNulty

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2025

Buggs asserts McNulty is not entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct “violates clearly established constitutional rights.” [DE 51 at 4]. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Doxator v. O’Brien, 39 F.4th 852, 863 (7th Cir. 2022).

City of Beech Grove v. Schmith

164 Ind. App. 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1975

the plans submitted at trial, Schmith’s intention is to renovate the interior of the building, rearrange certain rooms, and add two more bathroom facilities. *539 On April 16, 1973, the trial court held that the property qualified … Since this was the deciding issue on the case, the trial court’s exclusionary ruling was clearly an abuse of discretion, and thus reversible error.

In Re Stephens

867 N.E.2d 148 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 31, 2007

Clearly, charging an attorney fee in excess of that allowed by a statute or regulation also constitutes an ethical violation. … In In re Maley, 674 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.1996), this Court imposed a public reprimand on an attorney who retained a fee in excess of the fee awarded to him by the Worker’s Compensation Board according to presumptive limits established

Cripe v. Henkel Corp.

318 F.R.D. 356 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 2017

Cripe’s injuries, and readily acknowledged that she is not qualified to do so. … Cripe’s treating doctors on the cause of his injuries qualify as expert testimony.

Zingmond v. Harger

602 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 1985

The jail rules comply with the standards established by the Indiana Department of Corrections. … Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) there was immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against municipalities.

Spural-Harris v. Black

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2020

immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not C.

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.

James I.M. Lines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2017

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Lines contends that the trial court did not properly establish that Rohlman had the training and experience to be qualified as an expert and to allow her to testify regarding the consistency of the

Porter Development, LLC v. First National Bank of Valparaiso

837 N.E.2d 558 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2005

In support of their position Porter first argues that First National's fear of liability was unreasonable because First National was immune from any liability to Eagle Services pursuant to Indiana Code section 28-9-8-3(b) … Clearly, Porter was not denied the opportunity to be heard nor deprived of their property. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not error in finding that interpleader was appropriate. CROSS-APPEAL III.

Brook v. St. John's Hickey Memorial Hospital

269 Ind. 270 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1978

There is evidence that a qualified X-ray technologist was always present when Dr. Fischer made an injection of contrast medium into a patient prior to the taking of an X-ray. … “[E]ven where there is an established mode of treatment, the physician may be permitted to innovate somewhat if he can establish that, in his best judgment, this was for the benefit of his patient and where the established

Wright-Bachman, Inc. v. HODNETT

235 Ind. 307 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1956

It is the settled law that the question of classification is primarily for the legislature and does not become a judicial question unless it clearly appears that the legislative classification is not based on substantial … Article 4, Section 21, Constitution of Indiana. 12 “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Keller v. State

560 N.E.2d 533 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1990

In order to qualify as an evidentiary harpoon, it must be shown that there was a deliberate use of improper evidence caleu-lated to prejudice a defendant in the eyes of the jury. Williams v. … in addition, we note that this record contains pictures of the residence in question clearly demonstrating it is in fact a residential structure.

Meinschein v. J. R. Short Milling Co.

157 Ind. App. 53 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1973

subject matter, unless such law contains *56 an express provision indicating such intention, or unless the terms and provisions of such law are so comprehensive as to completely occupy the field of such subject matter, and clearly … profit corporation or organization located in any such city” are words of limitation expressing a legislative intent that such corporations or organizations are the only allowable lessees, as the city could lease to any qualified

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

Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley-Thoraco-Vascular Corp. v. Blatchford

742 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2001

They were also elected and qualified to serve on MRSD’s board of directors. The stock purchase agreement also contained a non-competition clause. … MRSD argues that the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous.

McCann v. State

749 N.E.2d 1116 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2001

We agree with Judge Vaidik that pregnancy is similar to the infirmity or age of the victim in that the defendant’s knowledge of these circumstances is not necessary for them to qualify as aggravating. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

In Re Petitions to Transfer Appeals From Appellate Court to Supreme Court

202 Ind. 365 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1931

I am not ready to concede that any one of the three departments of government established by our state Constitution will so far forget itself as to intentionally exceed its constitutional authority by doing anything not clearly … There must have been a reason for this qualifying clause, which, to my mind, is clearly apparent.

United States ex rel. Marks v. Brooks

32 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 1940

This is clearly stated by the provisions of Section 265 of the Judicial Code, Title 28 U.S. … A boundary line was established between the lands of the United States and lands of 14 tribes of Indians, including the Miamis.