Case law

Marriage of Pond v. Pond

700 N.E.2d 1130 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1998

Further, in closing argument filed in writing to the court, the husband stated: The facts most clearly provided in this case establish that the marriage of the parties was deteriorating. … To the contrary, the agreement clearly falls within the ambit of section 10 of the Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Gears v. State

203 Ind. 400 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1932

McDonald accepted the appointment and qualified. No objection was made to the appointment of Mr. McDonald and no request that three persons be nominated by the regular judge. Mr. … Neither tendered instruction No. 2 nor tendered instruction No. 12 contained any material matter that was not clearly and adequately presented to the jury by instructions given by the court.

Rodebaugh v. Rodebaugh

79 Ind. App. 324 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1923

Appellee was duly appointed administrator of her estate by the Allen Circuit Court, qualified as such, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his trust. … Clearly, the element of a meritorious defense to appellee’s said claim is sufficiently alleged, and therefore the contention in question is unwarranted.

Joshua Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2019

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 18 2019, 9:53 am court except for the purpose of establishing … A police officer may be qualified to identify drugs. E.g., Jones v. State, 957 N.E.2d 1033, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Ratcliff v. Dick Johnson School Township

204 Ind. 525 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1933

trustee notified her that while her work as a teacher in said township had been and was highly satisfactory to himself and to the school patrons of said school district, and while he recognized the fact that she was well qualified … p. 259, and that said statute is unconstitutional in that it violates §23, Art. 1, of our State Constitution, which provides that: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities

Goecker v. McOsker

177 Ind. 607 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1912

Appellant’s amended complaint, under five specifications, attempted to state facts establishing grounds for contest under the first, second and fourth causes. … Clearly that case has no force against this complaint, for it alleges that by reason of the irregularity, illegality, mistakes and malconduct of the election officers in each and all of the thirty-four election precincts

Roob v. Fisher

856 N.E.2d 723 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2006

Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous, which occurs when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. … Section *730 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States.

Ashland Pipeline Co. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.

505 N.E.2d 483 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1987

In cases tried by the court, we will not set aside the findings or judgment of the trial court unless such findings and judgment are clearly erroneous. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A). … Ashland may not, as a matter of law, claim immunity from liability in reliance upon a fifty-year-old recorded instrument.

STATE EX REL. SAVERY ETC. v. Criminal Court of Marion County

234 Ind. 632 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1955

I of our Bill of Rights, by granting a privilege and immunity *648 to one defendant not granted on equal terms to other defendants. Many different crimes may be the result of a criminal sexual psychopathic mind. … “Our construction, therefore, is, that the constitution does not forbid the establishment of Courts of Chancery with power, *649 in addition to the usual jurisdiction of a Court of equity, of taking cognizance of and protecting

Soames v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

934 N.E.2d 1154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2010

Fire prevention is well established as a primary purpose for the regulation of oil and gas production in Indiana. Jamie-son v. Indiana Natural Gas and Oil Co., 128 Ind. 555 , 28 N.E. 76 (1891). 23. … A court may only set aside agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (8) in excess

School City of Peru v. State Ex Rel. Youngblood

212 Ind. 255 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1937

It is alleged that the appellee had served continuously for eleven years last past as superintendent of such schools and was fully qualified as a tenure teacher with an indefinite contract pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Acts … When all of these facts are considered in connection with the appellee’s refusal to accept the position assigned to him by the board, it clearly appears that the board was justified in holding that the appellee was guilty

Gates v. Rosenogle

452 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1983

It is elementary that a party offering a deposition into evidence bears the burden of establishing its admissibility. … Thus, the deposition could have been found inadmissible for Gates' failure to establish compliance with TR 32(A). ' Citing an annotation in 48 AL.

Thompson v. State

875 N.E.2d 403 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

State, 829 N.E.2d 923, 925 (Ind.2005), in applying the Blakely holding: A trial court ... may enhance a sentence based only on those facts that are established in one of several ways: 1) as a fact of a prior conviction; 2 … With the 2006 amendment, the qualifying crimes for which a defendant could be determined a sexually violent predator were referenced by citation to Ind.Code § 11-8-8-5.

Adams v. Chavez

874 N.E.2d 1038 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2007

Isch and requested that the chairman “establish a striking panel for [Adams’s] nominee.” Appellant’s Appendix at 146. … An abuse of discretion exists where ' the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.

Town of Darmstadt v. CWK Investments-Hillsdale, LLC

114 N.E.3d 11 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

Parkhurst: Clearly, the time for appeal wouldn't start until findings were made. Ms. Kasha: Right. Mr. Bohleber: Right, and that's my recollection. … Code § 36-7-4-1602 (c) ("A person is entitled to judicial review of a nonfinal zoning decision only if the person establishes both of the following: (1) Immediate and irreparable harm. (2) No adequate remedy exists at law

Reed v. State

857 N.E.2d 19 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2006

receives a greater sentence for possessing a firearm if he or she is a serious violent felon, we believe it is not entirely accurate to view the increased sentence resulting therefrom as an enhancement based upon status, as is clearly … The greater penalty for an SVF conviction reflects that the offense is elevated (ie., is a more serious offense) by virtue of the fact that the defendant has a qualifying prior conviction.

Campbell v. Eckman/Freeman & Associates

670 N.E.2d 925 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1996

The court reasoned that the mere fact that the insurance carrier has a relationship with the employer should not afford it special immunity under the Act. Id. at 331 . … These documents also clearly stated that Intracorp was retained by the insurance company and that Intracorp’s involvement and services were based on the insurance company’s request.

Deere v. American Water Works Co.

306 F.R.D. 208 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2015

Plaintiffs therefore contend that the responses “unfairly inhibit Plaintiffs from establishing their case.” … The Court agrees with Defendant’s assessment and will modify the interrogatory to more clearly define its geographic and temporal scope.

Caldwell v. Wright

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 29, 2020

Caldwell’s allegations against Wright are clearly in this vein. … For that purpose, Wright invokes the legal doctrines of quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity. [DE 13 at 5.]

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2025

Code Title 32, Article 24” and that Defendants’ actions were “not due any immunity under Ind. Code Title 32, Article 24.” Id. … Thus, the compensation allowed under an eminent domain action clearly does not include all damages available from a tort claim for abuse of process.