Case law

Shane Beal and The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Edwin Blinn, Jr.

9 N.E.3d 694 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 2014

Because the proffer agreement had collapsed and the immunity attached to the agreement had dissolved, the Government sought to introduce Blinn’s statements against him. … Further, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id. 7  Pursuant to Ind.

AJAJ v. KREUGER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 21, 2021

, or where the latter Act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute." … He also alleges that defendants Kruger, Underwood, Cox, Sutter, Roloff, and Watson denied him access to an "Islamically qualified Sunni Imam." Id. at 9−11, ¶¶ 86−106.

Roman Marblene Co., Inc. v. Reginald Baker

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2017

Baker met his burden of establishing a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … [Agency’s] order only if it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity

Giovanoni v. INDIANA DEPT. OF WRKFRC. DEVT.

927 N.E.2d 906 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2010

Disqualification is inappropriate if the totality of the circumstances establishes that a claimant is unemployed through no fault of his own. … These recent changes clearly express the legislature's intention to include within “Discharge for just cause” a discharge for a knowing violation of a proper attendance rule that includes application to absences without employee

United States v. Allen

207 F. Supp. 2d 856 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 2002

AT & T Technologies, 831 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1993), the court set forth the considerations governing a motion in limine as follows: This court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible … At the evidentiary hearing, the Government offered the testimony of two witnesses to establish the scientific reliability of shoe print impression evidence in general.

Walnut Creek Nursey, Inc., d/b/a Alsip Home & Nursey v. Barbara Banske

26 N.E.3d 648 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2015

We don’t think she’s qualified as an expert in this case. THE COURT: What do you— [PLAINTIFF]: Doctor—she’s a doctor of naprapathy. … tests and measurements, (b) administration of specialized treatment procedures, (c) interpretation of referrals from licensed physicians, dentists, and podiatric physicians, (d) establishment

Gaus v. COUNTY OF WELLS, IND.

620 F. Supp. 1462 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 6, 1985

Boonstra, was dismissed on October 31, 1984 on the basis *1465 of immunity. Accordingly, the court need only focus on the allegations concerning the remaining defendants. … Applying the foregoing analysis to the facts of this case clearly indicates that plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Schneider v. Bahler

564 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 2, 1983

Lun-dy, 667 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir.1982), Judge Goldberg stated at page 1201: It is well-established that whites have a cause of action under Section 1982 when discriminatory actions are taken against them because of their association … Under this analysis, a plaintiff must prove: 1) . that he or she is a member of a racial minority; 2) . that he or she applied for and was qualified to rent or purchase certain property or housing; 3) that he or she was rejected

Fitzpatrick v. City of Fort Wayne

679 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 2009

In fact, it is undisputed that he viewed it at the scene and noted D.F. running into the restroom and then running out, establishing to a certainty that D.F. was in the restroom at the time of the beating. … In a false arrest case, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “a reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause existed." Williams v.

Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad v. Little

190 Ind. 662 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1921

Two other instructions referred to the injury being proximately caused by combined negligence of appellee’s decedent and other employes of the appellant, but the failure to qualify the instruction that appellant was liable … It is not a case where the verdict is so clearly right upon the evidence that the court is justified in disregarding intervening errors.

Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. Morgan County

397 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 2, 2005

State Action Immunity In Parker v. … A [county] may also establish, aid, maintain, and operate hospitals. Ind.Code § 36-8-2-5. Defendants hang their state action immunity argument on the verb “aid” in the statute.

Stroud v. State

257 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1971

The Roth decision clearly answers the question presented here. … From Officer Broeking’s testimony there was clearly sufficient evidence to *211 support the conclusion by the trial court that there was a sale.

M.W.S. v. M.S.S.

923 N.E.2d 458 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2010

s birth, these factors do not, as the court concludes, establish Father's disregard for the welfare of L.J.S. … Assuming without deciding that Grandparents qualify as de facto custodians, they must still overcome the strong presumption in favor of Father, the natural parent, in order to gain custody of L.J.S.

Brown v. State

275 Ind. 441 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1981

It is not clear from the record before us whether or not defendant’s request that a trial date be set actually qualifies as a motion for a speedy trial. In any event, defendant’s argument must fail on other grounds. … He argues that there was not a proper foundation or a complete chain of custody established prior to its admission. We do not agree.

Gary Community School Corp. v. Powell

906 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 2009

either position alone does not qualify. … The statute clearly permits all three, and GCSC has identified no demonstrable duplication in the award. We therefore cannot say the trial court’s award is clearly erroneous. 3.

Falls v. Town of Dyer

714 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 1988

Applying the reasoning and result of the majority in Rakovich (joined by eight judges without reservation) leads clearly and only to the decision here that all of these defendants, save the Town of Dyer, are entitled to immunity … Because of the interplay between the standards for immunity provided in Harlow v.

Crider v. State

258 Ind. 541 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 31, 1972

The compensation was not fixed by the “administrative authority in *548 control of the operation” as required by the statute but was established by the Town Board as a whole. … The argument goes that if qualified members of the bar cannot agree that the actions in question constitute an offense then how can a person of ordinary intelligence decide. The fallacy of this argument is self-evident.

Wise v. Wise

109 Ind. App. 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 1941

The language of the will: “I give and bequeath to my daughter Ida Wise, my farm of one hundred and twenty acres” is qualified by the remainder of the sentence, “that is to say that my daughter shall have absolute possession … the intention of the testator • expressed in a will all parts of it must be taken into consideration, and if it be possible, without departing from his general purpose expressed in the instrument as a whole or violating established

Bei Bei Shuai v. State

966 N.E.2d 619 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2012

A decision is an abuse of discretion when it "is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.2007). … I conclude that by charging Shuai with the intentional killing of a viable fetus, the State failed to establish the essential element of that crime, i.e., that A.S. was a viable fetus.

FRANKLIN v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 2019

Franklin); Filing No. 52 at 9 (arguing that Officer Highlen is protected by qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because there was no violation of any clearly established right); Filing No. 52 at 11 (arguing … Franklin); Filing No. 52 at 13 (arguing that Officer Highlen is protected by qualified immunity on the false arrest claim because it was not unreasonable for him to believe that Ms.