Case law

Jennings v. St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center

832 N.E.2d 1044 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2005

The one with the workplace is shielded from traditional tort liability because it qualifies as a "co-employer." … Judge Kirsch aptly stated a few years ago that the purpose of the Worker's Compensation Act is "not to immunize third-party tort feasors and their liability insurers from liability for negligence which results in serious

Wesleyan Pension Fund, Inc. v. First Albany Corp.

964 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1997

Wesleyan argues that, following the Supreme Court’s realistic approach, the various Clover Defendants clearly established minimum contacts with Indiana through their long-term business relationship with Wesleyan, because … Because the Clover Defendants do not meet their burden of establishing that Wesleyan qualifies as an exempt entity under section 23-2-1-2(b)(8), we need not address the defendants’ argument, premised on such an exemption,

Ross v. State

172 Ind. App. 484 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1977

. *487 Therefore, every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality, and such presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary.” … As an expert may be qualified by either practical experience or formal training, Guyton, supra, we find no abuse of discretion or error by the trial court on this issue.

Eric Kennedy v. Michelle M. Wade (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

Findings will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inferences. Id. … After her first year at Arizona State University, K.K. would qualify for in-state student rates, which would make the tuition comparable to Purdue University.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Law Enforcement Division v. Cobb

832 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2005

To meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case of gender discrimination, Cobb had to show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the job in question or was meeting her employer's … If the complainant does not establish all four elements, her claim fails as a matter of law. Id. In this case, only elements two and four are at issue.

Taylor Farm Ltd. Liability Co. v. Viacom Inc.

234 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 24, 2002

Taylor’s complaint is well-pleaded and clearly falls within the scope of the IELA. … Reply Brief’) at 3 (“Plaintiff does not even argue they [sic] qualify as ‘innocent purchasers.’ ”).

Swimming Turtle v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS. OF MIAMI CTY.

441 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1977

In re-enacting Article III of the Northwest Ordinance the First Congress clearly exercised its power under Article I, Section 8(3) of the Constitution of the United States. … The immunity conferred by Article III is not limited to Indian Tribes but may, in appropriate cases, apply to individual Indians as well. There is no strict need to show tribal relations.

Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor

3 N.E.3d 49 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 23, 2014

demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determination is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-eretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1(p) clearly states that when an assessment increases by more than 5% from one year to the next, an assessor "has the burden of proving that the assessment is correct."

John E. Sparre v. St. Joseph County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 22, 2024

The Court declines, however, to develop a due process argument on Sparre’s behalf when he has not clearly done so. See Ciceu v. Knox Cnty. Assessor, 232 N.E.3d 662, 665 (Ind. … CODE § 6-1.1-31-6 (2019) (establishing guidelines for the assessment of real property and clarifying that true tax value does not equate to fair market value).

Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller

172 Ind. 27 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1909

to the theory upon which it was presented to the trial court; and *32 in doing so, may look to the pleadings, the entire record, and briefs of counsel, and will construe the pleadings upon the theory most apparent, most clearly … The insistence here is that the words in the title, “intended to prevent free competition in business,” qualify and limit the words “to prohibit contracts or combinations of persons, firms or associations,” that they do not

Kendrick v. Marthakis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity. Officer Idowu also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … violation for a reasonable jury, the law would afford qualified immunity to Officer Idowu too.

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.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Hegewald

161 Ind. 631 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1903

The facts disclosed by the second paragraph of the complaint, tested by the authorities to which we have referred, clearly establish that appellee is entitled to have the appraisement or award in question set aside, and to … Appellee was not hound to establish all of the grounds upon which he, in his.pleading, based his right to set aside the award, for, if he established any one or more of such grounds or reasons which were sufficient for that

State Ex Rel. Lesh v. Indiana Manufacturers of Dairy Products

198 Ind. 288 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1926

And while some of the recitals of this finding may possibly state mere conclusions, it clearly and obviously fails to find the existence of the conspiracy which plaintiff had alleged and had the burden of proving, as charged … Over an objection that the witness was not qualified to testify as an expert, T. H. Broughton was permitted *301 to give his opinion as to why the shipping sta tions for milk had increased in number from. 1917 to 1921.

Jones v. Greiger, Trustee Etc.

130 Ind. App. 526 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 1960

Greiger, was, at all times mentioned in the complaint in this cause the duly elected, qualified and acting Trustee of Cass Township, La Porte County, Indiana. *529 “4. … The findings of the trial court will not be disturbed under a charge that the findings or decision is contrary to law, unless the same is clearly erroneous, McConnell et al. v.

In re the Guardianship of: A.E.S. Glen Scisney v. Saleem Adams and Tamara Adams (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2018

The findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … Further, we will not set aside the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id.

Isaiah Samelton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001). … [15] We find Samelton’s argument insufficient to establish an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting Exhibit 101.

Kennedy v. McCarty

778 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 1991

“[T]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Governmental Immunity Defendants’ devote an entire paragraph of their summary judgment brief to their claim that governmental immunity pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3(7) immunizes them from liability for plaintiff’s pendent

Christopher C. Ferran v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2019

Specifically, Ferran alleges the detective’s testimony concerning the identification of the pipe residue as methamphetamine was inadmissible because the State failed to establish that the detective qualified … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Paul v. State, 971 N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Miller v. Bryant

644 N.E.2d 188 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1994

Therefore, it falls within the parameters of P-C.R.1(1)(c) of the Indiana Rules of Procedure which clearly requires the Madison Cireuit Court to transfer the petition to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. … If 1.0. 35-50-6-8.3's purpose had been to reward academic achievements, it is doubtful that the statute would have included a qualifying cut-off date.