Case law

Smith v. Mosier

5 Blackf. 51 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1838

This, was clearly erroneous ; but as it should and could have no bearing upon the merits of the cause, the error ought not to set aside the finding and judgment of the Court. … It is evident that the special act of congress, and the conditional and qualified patent to Smith, cannot affect any right which Mosier may have acquired by his patent.

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.

State v. Brunner

947 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 2011

We 3 have previously assigned a test for new evidence brought under Post-Conviction Relief Rule 1(1)(a)(4): the petitioner must establish (1) that the evidence … Clearly the new evidence of Brunner’s recent sobriety, while laudable, will not produce a different result at trial.

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.

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.

Elkhart County Department of Public Welfare v. Kehr

233 Ind. 142 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 1953

payment from the estate over all other claims, except prior recorded encumbrances, taxes, reasonable costs of administration; and funeral expenses in an amount not to exceed $125.00,” are clear, unambiguous, and definitely establishes … “In so far as the later law is merely a reenactment of an earlier one, it will not repeal an intermediate act which qualifies or limits the first one, but such intermediate act will be deemed to remain in force, and to qualify

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.

Todd v. Crail

167 Ind. 48 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1906

Ordered to meet at„the office of the county surveyor on June 26, 1903, and qualify and make view and make report.” … Turning then to the bill of exceptions, it very clearly appears that the petition presented to the board on June 1, 1903, in Roley Smith gravel road, No. 41, and the notice of such presentation, and the proof thereof, are

Clark v. Worrall

33 Ind. App. 49 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1903

Potter was named as executor; that thereupon said Potter qualified as such executor, took possession of the estate, and entered upon the duties of his trust. … Such a provision in a will does not contravene an established rule of law, as will be seen later in this opinion.

Griffin v. State ex rel. Griffiths

119 Ind. 520 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1889

We understand it to be firmly established that where a separation can not be made, and the invalid provision completely detached and treated as independent, the whole act must be pronounced void. … It is undoubtedly the law that when the several provisions of an act are independent, some may stand although others may fall, but this occurs only when the provisions are clearly independent. As said by Shaw, C.

Reichelt v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

923 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 1996

The Corps has established that an area of 6.40 square miles or more in Northwest Indiana generates a flow of five cubic feet per second. … The Site also does not qualify for NWP 26 because the wetlands are not isolated waters. *1095 The plaintiffs’ environmental assessment established that the wetlands on the Site are part of a surface tributary system that

Chaffin v. Nicosia

297 N.E.2d 904 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1973

Clearly, this language is unambiguous and is not susceptible to the exception urged. … This is clearly not permissible in view of prior Indiana case law.

Hydraulic Exchange & Repair, Inc. v. KM Specialty Pumps, Inc.

690 N.E.2d 782 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1998

The trial court’s judgment will be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. … inadequate thus causing irreparable harm pending the resolution of the substantive action if the injunction does not issue, (2) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated at least a reasonable likelihood of success at trial by establishing

Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. State ex rel. Greenwood

159 Ind. 510 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1902

to which particular method of giving the notice prescribed by the statute, — whether by publication in a newspaper, or by posting notices in public places in the vicinity of the proposed highway, — was employed, is not clearly … The relator is shown to have been duly elected at the general election held in November, 1900, trustee of said Washington township, and duly qualified as such official, and was so acting at the time this action was instituted

Davis v. State

472 N.E.2d 922 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1985

Appellant now argues that the Exhibits were inadmissible because a sufficient chain of custody was not established. … It is well-established that the purpose of establishing a chain of custody for seized evidence is to show a complete chain of possession from the original receiver to the final custodian and thus to lay a proper foundation

Floyd v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

242 F. Supp. 3d 764 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

Bank violated RESPA by failing to respond to Linderman’s qualified written requests, entitling her to actual and statutory damages. Id. H. … While Linderman clearly seeks information from U.S.

Lerch v. Boyer

929 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 1996

This court previously granted motions to dismiss on grounds of immunity as to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Robert E. Grant, Judge, and J. … Nevertheless, to state a Bivens claim, the defendant must be a federal officer and must not have judicial immunity from suit.

Romack v. Public Service Co. of Indiana

499 N.E.2d 768 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1986

Retaliatory Discharge There is clearly established public policy supporting Romack's claim for retaliatory discharge. … He stated: [I] would extend the protection of the "public policy exception" to grant a right of action for damages to any employee at will whose wrongful and retaliatory discharge contravenes clearly established public policy

Radio Picture Show Partnership v. Exclusive International Pictures, Inc.

482 N.E.2d 1159 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1985

Radio in its Motion for Judgment on the pleadings and affidavits which were made a part thereof clearly establish that on the date of service Roxxon Entertainment was no longer the general partner of Radio and the uncontroverted … The court is left to guess. 3622 Limited has not carried its burden of pleading and proving its immunity.

Dier v. State

442 N.E.2d 1043 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1982

A sanction against the State was clearly not in order. ISSUE II State’s Exhibits Nos. 4, 9, and 33 are fingerprint evidence and tie Defendant to the scene of the crime. … Defendant also asserted that another State’s witness was more qualified, than was Sohl, to conduct the demonstration.