Case law

Reeder v. Carter

339 F. Supp. 3d 860 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 21, 2018

Failure-to-accommodate Claim In order to prevail on a "failure to accommodate" claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must set forth evidence establishing that: "(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer … Reeder were able to establish that he was a qualified individual, which claim we have rejected, supra , his discrimination claim would fail for lack of any comparators who are factually similar to Mr. Reeder. Mr.

Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Hamilton

788 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2003

. _ Bryant Health Care is a qualified provider of residential care to RCAP recipients. … Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, these statutes do not obligate DDARS to pay for residential care for all qualified individuals.

In re Indiana State Bar Association's Petition to Authorize a Program Governing Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts

550 N.E.2d 311 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1990

This principle is so well established that it requires little, if any, citation to support it. … Lawyers must not be immune from disciplinary proceedings, especially when it comes to administering their clients' accounts.

Damonta Lamont Jarrett v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

These statutes do not clearly permit multiple punishments, either expressly or by unmistakable implication. … Here, there is no dispute that Jarrett’s attempted robbery conviction qualifies.

Iseton v. State

472 N.E.2d 643 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Even when a defendant is present at trial, witnesses need not point to the defendant to establish the requisite identification. State v. … jurors in a felony case other than a Class D felony case; or (2) six (6) qualified jurors in a Class D felony, misdemeanor, infraction or ordinance violation case."

Norman v. Turkey Run Community School Corp.

274 Ind. 310 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1980

by this legal relationship is a practical recognition by the law that school officials are required to exercise due care in the supervision of their pupils; that while they are neither an insurer of safety nor are they immune … The school personnel here clearly exercised ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the children under their authority.

In the Matter of: L.S., C.S., & W.S., (Minor Children) and J.S. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2016

Supreme Court Court of Appeals as precedent or cited before any court except and Tax Court for the purpose of establishing … L.S. did not qualify for the program and neither parent sought any further treatment or therapy.

COX v. RANDY WEITZEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2021

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … "[A] negative answer to either one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity." Hanes v. Zurick, 578 F.3d 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2009).

Scott David Luce v. Cathy Sue Luce n/k/a Cathy Sue Valenti (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2020

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 30 2020, 8:54 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Further the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order are similarly clear. First, the parties both signed the Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

DePauw Plate Glass Co. v. City of Alexandria

152 Ind. 443 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1899

It may not thus find immunity from taxation. It will be held to one jurisdiction or the other. … There is nothing in the case to show that the township ever attempted to exercise authority over appellant’s property, nor to show that appellant ever acknowledged any such authority, while the facts clearly show an exercise

Pinkus v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

65 Ind. App. 38 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1916

Ed. 919 , it was said: “It would seem on general principles that if the party who actually causes the injury is free from all civil and criminal liability therefor, his employer must also be entitled to a like immunity.” … Diehl, 84 Ind. 274 , our Supreme Court very clearly defined the duties and liabilities of sleeping car companies toward occupants of berths upon their coaches.

Bunker v. National Gypsum Co.

426 N.E.2d 422 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1981

Despite this, the test to be employed when the question is raised can be clearly and simply stated. The leading Indiana decision is Wright-Bachman Inc. v. Hodnett (1956), 235 Ind. 307 , 133 N.E.2d 713 . … Although the determination of the legislature is reviewable by the courts, the courts will not inquire into the wisdom of the legislative decision in establishing the period of legal bar, unless the time allowed is so short

Madden v. State

254 Ind. 628 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1970

If the defendant was drunk, it was his own fault, and he can not claim any immunity by reason of his intoxication. … State contends that, assuming that the giving of Final Instruction No. 14 was indeed error, the error committed by the trial court was harmless and would not result in a reversal of the judgment because “the conviction was clearly

Knox v. AC & S, INC.

690 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 1988

The accrual date in a case such as the case at bar has been clearly established as a discovery statute of limitations. *759 See, Barnes, 476 N.E.2d 84 (Ind.1985); Walters, 781 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986). … In addition, Dague Corp., has clearly established that the statute of repose places an outside limit on liability of twelve (12) years for a products liability cause of action in Indiana.

Gambill v. State

479 N.E.2d 523 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1985

Dogracias was eminently qualified by training and experience in the field *528 of pathology. … Appellant objected at trial and now to the admission of this testimony based upon a failure to establish a proper chain of custody.

Real Estate Appraiser License and Certification Bd. v. Stewart

695 N.E.2d 962 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1998

Because the Petitioner does not meet the applicable requirements, he does not qualify for admission to the examination.” Record at 34-35. Stewart petitioned the trial court to review the Board’s Final Order. … Instead, deference is given to the trial court, and we will set aside the trial court’s findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Vanderburgh County Bd. of Comm’rs v.

Boyle v. City of Anderson

534 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1989

In that view, there could be no available governmental immunity. … One not a party to the contract may directly enforce the contract as a third party beneficiary only if the contracting parties clearly intended to directly benefit him by imposing a duty in his favor_ The intent to benefit

Snuffer v. State

461 N.E.2d 150 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1984

The trial jury used in civil cases shall act also in criminal cases, but must in criminal cases consist of: (1) twelve (12) qualified jurors in a felony case other than a Class D felony case; or (2) six (6) qualified jurors … This evidence was clearly sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the vehicle which Snuffer dismantled was that of Roy Brown.

Allman v. State

253 Ind. 14 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 1968

That notwithstanding due diligence on the part of said defendant and his attorneys, it has been impossible to employ a qualified psychiatrist to come to Columbus, Indiana, and examine said defendant; that a total of eight … It has long been established by this Court that it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to decide whether to allow a plea of guilty to be withdrawn.

Huie v. Private Truck Council of America, Inc.

466 N.E.2d 435 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1984

It is well established that a state may not, by its tax scheme, discriminate against interstate commerce and in favor of intrastate commerce. Alaska v. … The statute clearly exempts motor carrier companies operating solely in intrastate commerce.