Case law

James R. Johnson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2012

If Johnson used only his hand to touch the child’s vagina, it would not qualify as deviate sexual conduct. See Ind. Code § 35-41-1-9. … In the latter scenario, a sufficient factual basis may be established by evidence aside from a defendant’s statements. Id.

Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

438 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 2006

Caskey relies on several discrete events that are clearly time-barred. … Caskey’s allegation about extruder training in 1997 is clearly time-barred.

Bedenarzik v. State

204 Ind. 517 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1933

His testimony that he heard evidence which he believed established probable cause added nothing to the showing made by the warrant itself. … Under neither section is oral evidence necessary, and under the latter section, which is the one involved in the case at bar, it is clearly not contemplated.

COLYER v. ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023

officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Colyer's arrest, Officers Jerrett and Durr are not entitled to qualified immunity. Mr.

Alexis Hutchison and Martha Farber, and Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus

2 N.E.3d 802 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2014

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the materials on appeal leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Trisler, 996 N.E.2d at 356. … The federal statutes also state that Medicare-qualified and Medicaid-qualified facilities are not precluded from “requiring an individual, who has legal access to a resident’s income or resources available to pay for care

Delmas Sexton II v. State of Indiana: Allen County Public Defender's Office (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2016

Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 16 2016, 8:21 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … Our standard of review of summary judgment appeals is well established: When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court.

B.K.C. v. State

781 N.E.2d 1157 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2003

Specifically, BK.C. argues that his determinate wardship was erroneous because "a prerequisite to determining if a juvenile offender qualifies for a [determinate] sentence is a determination by the judge under Indiana Code … The qualifying offenses include ten with sexual elements (ie., Ind.Code §§ 5-2-12-4(a)(1) (10)) and two, kidnapping and erim-inal confinement, where the victim is less than eighteen years of age (i.e., Ind.Code §§ 5-2-12-

Lehman v. Shroyer

721 N.E.2d 365 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1999

A judgment is clearly erroneous only if a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … The court held that the couple’s letter did not qualify as the type of notice required by the statute because the letter failed to identify a deceptive act, namely the advertisement. Id.

In re the Guardianship of: A.S.S. Glen Scisney v. Saleem Adams and Tamara Adams (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2018

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

Hibbard v. Hibbard

118 Ind. App. 292 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1947

Proof of the existence of such a relation between the parties establishes prima facie that the dominant party to such relation occupies a position of trust and confidence which he must not abuse.” … Army Air Force where he qualified as a pilot, and the court takes judicial knowledge of the rigorous physical and mental requirements of such service.

LEWIS v. ROSS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 3, 2020

"Inmates have long had a clearly established right to be free from intentionally inflicted psychological torment and humiliation unrelated to penological interests." Leiser v. … City of Chi., 829 F.3d 869, 877 n.10 (7th Cir. 2016) ("The defendants alternatively argue that we should affirm based on qualified immunity.

Jason Tibbs v. State of Indiana

59 N.E.3d 1005 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2016

Finally, like Lashbrook and Pelley, Tibbs wholly failed to establish any direct, material connection between McCarty and Rison’s murder similar to that which was established by forensic evidence in … But the trial court’s findings clearly establish that there was not, in fact, an agreement between Rickey and the State.

Sports, Inc. v. Gilbert

431 N.E.2d 534 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1982

Clearly, when Riggs was in the speedway parking lot he could only have been arrested for a misdemeanor. A private citizen making such an arrest would be liable for false imprisonment. Knott, supra; Golibart, supra. … If the Sports employees are immune from liability for their failure to use powers granted to them by the state, their private employer is likewise immune.

Davison v. Williams

251 Ind. 448 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1968

So while this legislative minimum is conclusive criminally it need not be conclusive of liability or immunity in a civil case because a reasonable man might do more or less in the circumstances. … Its application would .clearly allow proof of excuse or justification in statutory negligence cases without pleading those matters specially.

Judy Kirby v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2015

The standard by which we review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is well established. … This error was not cured as the surrounding instructions “did not serve to qualify the mandatory presumption.” Id.

Thornberry v. City of Hobart

887 N.E.2d 110 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2008

An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law. McCullough v. … The burden is on the complainant to establish the invalidity of the administrative action and the court may not interfere with the discretionary authority of the administrative body unless it is established that such body

Forrest Brown v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2015

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Jones v. State, 812 N.E.2d 820, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). … [8] With respect to the nature of Brown’s offense, we note that Brown’s arrearage is more than double the amount required to qualify the offense as a class C felony, and that Brown failed to pay any child

Locklayer v. State

162 Ind. App. 64 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1974

However, closely related to the defense of entrapment, yet clearly distinguishable is an additional rule of probable cause applied by our courts for the protection of the defendant. … Further, by reason of his past experience with drugs, a narcotics addict may be properly qualified to render an opinion that the substance he injected into his body contained a narcotic drug with which he has demonstrated

Stout v. Kokomo Manor Apartments

677 N.E.2d 1060 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1997

The evidence therefore is sufficient to support the determination that the act of molestation qualified as “criminal activity” as provided in the lease agreement. … An act of child molestation against another resident at the apartment complex qualifies Stout’s son as “a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals.”

Bostick v. State

804 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2004

The evidence that established or was presented to the Court at trial, the Court previously found to have established beyond a reasonable doubt, include the following dates of birth for the children. … Because of the absence of a jury determination that qualifying aggravating circumstances were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we must therefore vacate the trial court's sentence of life without parole. Bostick v.