Case law

Q.D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development

114 N.E.3d 840 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2019

-A., negotiate his pay for each trip, and hire other drivers to complete his deliveries if they were qualified under federal regulations. Because Q.D. … -A. had established that Driver ran an independently established business, it had failed to prove the two other prongs. First, the LALJ reasoned, Q.D.

Meshberger v. Thomas

99 Ind. App. 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 1935

Through proper proceedings in the Adams circuit court, a liquidating agent was appointed upon petition of the stockholders of said bank, who qualified and proceeded to liquidate the same. … We think the evidence clearly establishes that there was a copartnership, and that these appellants entered into the same, and were owners as copartners of the bank, and were such owners at the time of the bringing of this

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

City of Indianapolis v. Ingram

176 Ind. App. 645 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1978

Thus, finding § (e) can not limit eligibility based on another clause, at the very least Agnes Barrett could clearly qualify as a professional educator for membership on this board. … So it follows that findings three to eight inclusive are clearly erroneous because they are based on evidence from a hearing de novo, and finding nine is also clearly erroneous as the Board was properly constituted.

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.

WTHR-TV v. State

685 N.E.2d 1091 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1997

Pursuant to the three-pronged test, 4 the journalist would be compelled to disclose the materials only after a showing that “(1) the materials sought are clearly material and relevant to the underlying action; (2) there is … In light of the Supreme Court’s clear statements that a reporter does not have a privilege to withhold evidence relating to a crime, we reject WTHR’s assertion that Zulka establishes such a First Amendment privilege.

Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds

891 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2008

To invoke this doctrine, the mat *1083 ters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of an opinion. … In fact, if he can’t work then the jury’s award is going to have to take care of him; and therefore I was not making reference to the immunity.... Id. at 382.

State Ex Rel. Woodford v. Marion Superior Court

655 N.E.2d 63 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1995

Woodford's petition *66 clearly comes within the scope of this rule. … This deprivation was consistent with the promise of remedy by due course of law, art. 1, § 12, Indiana Constitution, and the promise of equal privileges and immunities to all citizens, art. 1, § 23, because this Court granted

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

Jones v. State

457 N.E.2d 231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1983

The cited cases held that summer fishing camps and other temporary retreats similar to the one described in this case did not qualify as "dwellings" under the statute. … appears that the amendment was made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly.

Dequindre v. Williams

31 Ind. 444 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1869

In the first section of the act of 1825, already referred to, the same phrase is used in such a connection as clearly to import a meaning much broader than the literal signification of the words. … It is but adhering to one of the ancient and established landmarks of the law to be guided by it. It must be applicable to the present case.

Steel v. Rust

830 N.E.2d 62 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2005

Beta argues on appeal that this effectively constituted a medical opinion and Doolittle was not qualified to provide such an opinion. … It is unnecessary to turn to the Indiana Administrative Code or the National Electric Code to establish a duty on Beta's part for Brian's benefit or to establish the existence of a cause of action for Margaret.

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

Nunnery v. Elgin Joliet Eastern Railway Co.

48 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 1999

Therefore, to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, plaintiff must show: (1) that he is within a protected class; (2) that he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) that he was qualified; and (4 … Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that he was denied this training is clearly unfounded.

Carmen v. Eli Lilly Company

109 Ind. App. 76 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1941

An effective resistance is established by a short course of treatment which is applicable to all types of cases. … insufficient to establish one or more facts essential to the plaintiff’s right of action.”

Larry Lyons, Jr. v. State of Indiana

993 N.E.2d 1192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2013

“An alternate is not, of course a member of the jury, and he or she qualifies as an outside influence under [Evidence] Rule 606(b).” Griffin v. … Lyons has not established harm or substantial risk of harm. II.

James Short v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2018

“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court has misinterpreted the law.” Id. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1372 | November 14, 2018 Page 5 of 6  probation officers and sheriff’s deputies qualify as “any” probation or law enforcement officers

Melody Barrows v. Crossroads Bank (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly … Further, a party appealing from a negative judgment will prevail only if the party establishes the judgment is contrary to law. See id.

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

Gibson v. Koons

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 12, 2024

Lastly, Casework Manager Koons argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not order Gibson be dragged on his injured feet. [DE 93] at 20-22. … Thus, Casework Manager Koons is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. III.