Case law

Buffington v. Buffington

151 Ind. 200 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1898

It is the firmly-established rule in this State that antenuptial contracts are not in such disfavor as to require rigid construction. … The clause in which each reserved the right to dispose of his or her property, by will very clearly had in view the adjustment of property rights after the death of either.

In Re: The Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.H. (Minor Child) D.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2020

In determining whether the court’s decision to terminate the parent-child relationship is clearly erroneous, we review the trial court’s judgment to determine whether the evidence clearly and convincingly … supports the findings and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment.

Kellum v. State

66 Ind. 588 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

Jones, five discreet persons, as such managers; that the said managers, having each qualified and given bond and security as required by said act and to the approval of said Board of Trustees, adopted the scheme alleged in … The constitution of 1816 contained no prohibition against the establishment of lotteries by legislative action, but was entirely silent on that subject.

Doe v. City of Marion

196 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2002

Defendants’ 'Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to this claim. 13 CONCLUSION In sum, Doe has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to any violation of her clearly established Constitutional rights to support … Because the court concludes in this fashion, it need not address Raymer’s secondary argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 13 . To the extent Doe is attempting to assert that Lt.

Messer v. Indiana State Police

586 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2008

immunity. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944 , 949+ (7th Cir.1994) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the City as to plaintiff's Monell claim, and in favor of the officer entitled to qualified immunity in using a deadman roadblock

WILLIAMS v. SHEPARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2025

Holcomb were not personally responsible for Williams' conditions of confinement, and (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III. … Qualified Immunity Because the Court is granting summary judgment on the substance of Williams' conditions-of-confinement claims, the Court does not address qualified immunity.

Fabian v. Goldstone

123 Ind. App. 49 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1952

the judge presiding at a trial to indicate, by any comment or remark made in the presence and hearing of the jury, his opinion as to the weight or sufficiency of any evidence in the case, or as to what has or has not been established … That the trial court in giving the charge in controversy clearly invaded the province of the jury and therefore erred is settled beyond controversy, not only by the holding in Jones v.

C.B. v. B.W.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2013

But, as Mother also notes correctly, that finding is qualified by the following language: “Especially since the child has no siblings with Mother currently, and the sibling with Father given the evidence.” … Here, it was Father who filed a petition to establish paternity.

Marion County Assessor v. Square 74 Associates, LLC

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 14, 2024

The Assessor’s burden for overturning the Indiana Board’s decision on appeal is well established. … He must show that the decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before [the Indiana Board.]” Kooshtard Prop. I, LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Assessor, 38 N.E.3d 750, 753 (Ind.

Aaron v. REVIEW BD. OF INDIANA, ETC.

440 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1982

A temporary plan or method resulting in normal production would not qualify. … Clearly, the temporary methods employed by NIPSCO did not conform to its standards for the regular operation of its facilities.

Church v. Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R.

70 Ind. 161 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1880

The parties appeared to the action below, and without objection the court appointed three qualified persons as commissioners to appraise the damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as above. … The complaint clearly did not bring this case within the provisions of sec. 15 of the act of May 11th, 1852, supra.

Leitch v. State

736 N.E.2d 1284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2000

After deciding to investigate this infraction, Reynolds activated his lights and followed the car into the lot of a car, wash establishment. … There, the Supreme Court specifically said that it was [not] inclined ... to qualify the breadth of the general authority to search incident to a lawful custodial arrest on an assumption that persons arrested for the offense

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

485 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1985

service. 2 This is clearly distinguishable from allowing amortization of cancelled plants that never became "used and useful". … Whether or not the Bailly N-1 project qualifies as an accommodation aspect of service as contemplated by 1.C. § 8-1-2-1.

Hay v. State

178 Ind. 478 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1912

While it should not be held that the word “strong”, used in the act to qualify “corroborating circumstances”, is without force or meaning, and is not binding on the consciences of jurors, we think that the finding of the … The Attorney-General insists that this statute is applicable here, and the judgment should be af *485 firmed, because defendant’s own testimony, fairly considered, establishes his guilt as charged.

State ex rel. Mt. Carmel School Corp. v. Shields

56 Ind. 521 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1877

Shields, trustee of said Springfield township, unlawfully entered upon, and took possession of, said schoolhouse and grounds, and employed and put said house in possession of the appellee Lucy Smith, a qualified and licensed … the same at a cost of four thousand dollars, making said house of sufficient capacity to conveniently accommodate two hundred scholars, and furnished said school-house with suitable furniture; that there was, and had been established

Mosley v. Board of Commissioners

200 Ind. 515 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1929

Some of the other cases cited relate to courts the judges of which must be elected, as clearly stated in the Constitution. These authorities do not convince us that the judges of the municipal court must be elected. … This provision is general and of uniform operation as to all municipal courts which may be established under the act.

Sharp v. Catron

142 Ind. App. 304 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1968

A special judge was selected, qualified and assumed jurisdiction, on the matter of the Determination of Heirship. … The appellants argue that this change clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature in the Act 1953, supra, by passing the Act of 1965, supra, containing language which embodies the construction urged by appellants.

State Ex Rel. Blieden v. Gleason

224 Ind. 142 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1946

Shortly after the death which caused the vacancy, the mayor appointed appellee to the office and he immediately qualified and assumed the duties of the office. … E. (2d) 995, the opinion which denied a rehearing clearly covered our question.

State Ex Rel. Emmert v. Union Trust Co.

227 Ind. 571 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1949

the diaries to be edited by a qualified person and cause them then to be printed, published, dedicated to her father, Stoughton A. … To me it is evident *584 that by the use of these words testatrix clearly expressed her intention to do a public charity.

Marion County Assessor v. Square 74 Associates, LLC

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 14, 2024

The Assessor’s burden for overturning the Indiana Board’s decision on appeal is well established. … He must show that the decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before [the Indiana Board.]” Kooshtard Prop. I, LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Assessor, 38 N.E.3d 750, 753 (Ind.