Case law

Lake County Property Owners Ass'n v. Holovachka

233 Ind. 509 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1954

It cannot be doubted that, where it is established that the prosecuting attorney is an interested party, or otherwise clearly incapacitated, the court may appoint an attorney to represent the interests of the state. … This court did not decide that a person guilty of crime becomes immune from prosecution upon becoming prosecutor.

Sieberns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

946 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 1996

The fact that they went beyond the dictates of the statute by considering creating a position for Sieberns clearly indicates a good faith effort to find a reasonable accommodation. … The facts of this case clearly indicate that Wal-Mart put forth a good faith effort to uncover a reasonable accommodation for Sieberns and, unfortunately, was unable to do so.

In the Matter of the Name Change of K.H., K.H.

127 N.E.3d 257 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2019

[9] In A.L., we noted that as a general rule, a petitioner seeking a name change must give notice of the petition in a qualifying newspaper. … First, these attestations sufficiently establish that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to K.H. if she is forced to provide the notice demanded by the trial court.

Marriage of Boone v. Boone

924 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2010

Indeed, we conclude that the failure to approve of retroactive child support predating the filing of a dissolution decree is more indicative of the Indiana Legislature's views on the subject, because the Legislature has clearly … Yet, in draconian terms, the dissent opines that our conclusion in this case will immunize deadbeat parents from legal accountability, give married deadbeat parents a "free pass" for shirking their duty, and deprive children

Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp.

419 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 1981

The general rule is that expert medical testimony is required to establish the content of such “reasonable disclosure” unless the situation is clearly within the realm of laymen’s comprehension as where the disclosure is … A panelist shall have absolute immunity from civil liability for all communications,' findings, opinions, and conclusions made in the course and scope of duties prescribed by this article. 8 .

Wendell Brown a/k/a Menes Ankh El v. State of Indiana

64 N.E.3d 1219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2016

Therefore, by the power and authority vested in me by right of birth and right of soil, retaining all substantive unalienable rights and immunities in the Organic United States of … Following Ankh-El’s arrest, his fingerprints established his identity as Wendell Brown.

Underwood v. State

535 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1989

Low mental capacity is not sufficient to establish that a defendant lacked the requisite capacity to form intent. Hester v. State (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 1110 . … The exhibit clearly speaks for itself; notwithstanding any testimony that might have been garnered concerning the dimensions of the entryway, the fact clearly demonstrated by State's Exhibit No. 4 could not have been contradicted

Beebe v. State

6 Ind. 501 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1855

The same qualified prohibitory policy, by means of the township vote, was attempted under the new constitution, in the liquor act of 1853. … But this is clearly impossible. It will continue to agitate the public until it is definitely settled at the ballot-box.

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.

State Board Tax Commissioners v. International Business College, Inc.

145 Ind. App. 353 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1969

of incorporation so literally as to defeat the established purpose of fostering education.” … Clearly, plaintiffs in the Coppock case did not qualify as owner, occupant and user. Said case is therefore directly analogous to Travelers Insurance Co. v. Kent (1898), 151 Ind. 349 , 50 N.

HALLIGAN v. MYERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 29, 2024

They also contend that each defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Halligan was entitled to due process in connection with his placement in segregation. … Halligan's constitutional rights, the Court need not address their qualified immunity argument. Sparing v.

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.

Cox v. State

422 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1981

They also admitted the theft of various tools from Carter’s Block, Inc., a Logans-port business establishment. … They testified, however, they had not been promised immunity in exchange for their testimony against Cox. I.

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.

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.

Van Vactor Farms, Inc. v. Marshall County Plan Commission

793 N.E.2d 1136 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2003

We will only reverse the Commission's decision if the evidence, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the Commission's conclusions are clearly erroneous. Id. … The ordinance must contain specific standards by which the plan commission can determine whether the plat qualifies for approval. IND.CODE § 36-7-4-702(b).

Yoon v. Krick (In Re Krick)

373 B.R. 593 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 12, 2007

The record clearly establishes that transfer of whatever interest was held in the subject real estate by Brenda on the date of confirmation of her Chapter 13 plan was made by means of a quit claim deed to her parents subsequent … This transfer clearly violated the provisions of paragraph 7 of the confirmation order.

Brumfield v. Drook

101 Ind. 190 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1885

Had such change of disposition been intended, the testator would probably have employed language that would have clearly indicated such purpose, in view of the fact that a contrary intention had already been twice explicitly … All the parts of a will are to be construed in relation to each other so as, if possible, to form one consistent whole, and so as to uphold all of its provisions, if this can be done consistently with established rules of

Williams v. Hittle

629 N.E.2d 944 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1994

Even though, at the time this evidence was admitted, Indiana had not yet adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, the financial statements in question would clearly be admissible under federal law. … This is especially so when the aggrieved party is an established business: “[W]here the loss of the use of property involves a known and established business, the value of such loss of the use of the property may be determined

Stanton v. Aramark

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2021

“To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove 3 Even if a soy-based diet did pose a serious risk of harm, the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly … established that a soy-based diet is unconstitutional.