Case law

United States v. Clark County Indiana

113 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2000

Any revenues in excess of that amount were divided between ICI and the Army, pursuant to previously established percentages. … Corp., 987 F.2d at 431 ; Hirata Corp., 193 F.R.D. at 592 , the contracts between ICI, the Army, and the subtenants or subcontractors are clearly at the heart of this declaratory action and may properly be considered part

Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Manuilov

715 N.E.2d 968 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1999

The direct questioning of the plaintiff and his careful answers appeared to be clearly designed to leave the jury with a false impression. … We are therefore led to the conclusion that expert scientific testimony is re- quired to establish and explain the complex causal relationship between Manuilov’s fall and his injuries.

Howard Larky v. Camp Livingston, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2025

(“Absent such a showing of prejudice, we conclude that City did not waive the defense of governmental immunity.”). … In the context of the entire exculpatory clause, the court held that “these words clearly demonstrate that the Release encompasses negligence.” Id.

Stidham v. Whelchel

684 N.E.2d 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1997

A denial of the motion is presumptively valid and the movant must demonstrate that the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … The plaintiffs burden to come forward with evidence which would establish jurisdiction does not arise until a challenge by the defendant. Id.

Coffer v. Arndt

732 N.E.2d 815 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2000

Further, such information was clearly relevant to the underlying issue of when Coffer knew or should have known of the alleged malpractice. Citing Coghill v. … Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Clause states: "The General Assembly shall not grant te any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms

McNear v. Roberson

12 Ind. App. 87 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1895

Counsel insist that the evidence fails to establish a promise to pay, sufficient to avoid the statute of limitations, and thus revive the cause of action. Section 302, R. S. 1894 (section 301, R. … For the fault and laches of the creditor in enforcing his claim, the debtor and his heirs are granted immunity.

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. Lewis v. Smith

158 Ind. 543 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1902

By no rule of constitutional interpretation can tbe term “just,” as used in tbe second clause of §1, be said to qualify or limit or restrict tbe meaning of the words “uniform and equal”, used in tbe first. … Tbe general doctrine upon this subject is clearly stated by Judge Cooley: “It is of tbe very essence of taxation that it be levied with equality and uniformity, and to this end that there should be some system of apportionment

Regester v. Indiana State Board of Nursing

703 N.E.2d 147 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1998

seeking such relief has been prejudiced by an 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 … Reges-ter’s testimony alone establishes the basis for the Board’s suspension of her license.

Hart v. Mannina

992 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2014

All of the witnesses stated that they did not clearly see the man who shot Duane, as the crime happened quickly, occurred at night, and his face was difficult to see due to his hooded sweatshirt. … Because the Court found no constitutional violation, it need not address the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. . The Court in Hetler also noted the same with respect to qualified immunity.

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.

In the Matter of F.S., T.W., M.F., and B.F. (Minor Children) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services for Crawford County

53 N.E.3d 582 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2016

The defendants asserted qualified immunity, and the district court granted their motion for summary judgment. … In order to determine whether qualified immunity shielded the defendants from liability for the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the reviewing court first had to determine whether the facts alleged showed

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

Scheckel v. State

620 N.E.2d 681 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1993

This circumstance could conceivably qualify as an aggravating circumstance under Ind.Code § 85-88-1-7.1(d), which provides that the statutorily enumerated aggravating circumstances of subsections (b) and (c) do not limit … Failure to find mitigating cireumstances when clearly supported by the record may imply that they were overlooked and not properly considered. Jones, 467 N.E.2d at 683 .

Warner, Etc., Admrs. v. Keiser, Etc., Exrs.

93 Ind. App. 547 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1931

Maring, his surviving widow, named as executrix, qualified and entered upon the discharge of her duties; Joel M. … Maring, deceased; on October 26, 1926, the appellees were appointed and qualified as executors of the last will and testament of Grace K.

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.

In Re the Guardianship of A.L.C.

902 N.E.2d 343 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2009

The findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions thereon. Id.

Davis v. State

948 N.E.2d 843 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2011

Davis objected, arguing that the State had failed to establish an adequate foundation. … Our Supreme Court has stated that “[although a witness may not be qualified to offer expert testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 [ (Rule 702) ], the witness may be qualified as a ‘skilled witness’ (sometimes referred

Schrenker v. Clifford

270 Ind. 525 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979

The earlier statute, Ind.Code § 3-1-22-5 (Burns 1972) is a clearly stated and unambiguous rule that absent voter ballots are only to be mailed to addresses outside of the county of the applicant’s residence. … This is a regulation governing Indiana elections which is within the prerogative of the General Assembly to establish. Other such regulations include residency and age requirements.

DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer

847 N.E.2d 160 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 17, 2006

This was clearly “in the course of” his employment because clocking in and out was part of Farmer’s job. See Global Constr., Inc. v. … This immunity applies only if the injury is “by accident.” The parties do not dispute that Farmer was injured by an intentional tort of a co-worker.