Case law

Edwards v. Commonwealth

191 Va. 272 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1950

Very clearly the evidence does not show any violation of sections 1 or 2. … The court expressly did not qualify the Thornhill and Carlson decisions but reaffirmed them, saying they “involved statutes baldly forbidding all picketing near an employer’s place of business.

Boyle v. State

105 Ind. 469 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1886

There is an essential difference between a statement denying a thing and one admitting the existence of a thing and qualifying its character. … Again, the instruction is to be considered in connection with those previously given, and they very clearly informed the jury that to constitute murder in the second degree the shooting must have been purposely and maliciously

Drummond v. State

467 N.E.2d 742 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1984

Worak-Scholz, who had been granted use immunity, was the State's sole eyewitness. … Appellant's expression of his intention to kill his codefendant is clearly probative on the question of motive.

Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vincel

452 N.E.2d 418 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 1983

The Vincels argue that IC 27-7-6-2 establishes the minimum category of persons who must be insured under automobile policies in Indiana. … Parenthetically, we also emphasize that Joseph could not qualify as an insured under the liability portion of the policy either.

Emergency Physicians of Indianapolis v. Pettit

714 N.E.2d 1111 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

Timothy could establish that his care was within the standard of care was by presenting expert testimony on that issue.” R. at 620. … Timothy could establish that his care fell within the applicable standard of care was by presenting expert testimony on that issue.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Crescent Manor, Inc.

416 N.E.2d 470 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1981

. § 1396 et seq., provides for federal-state sharing of costs for medical and rehabilitation services afforded to certain qualified individuals “whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical … court finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity

DeMarcus DeMorrow Bush v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2024

the essential elements of Rape, for which Garrett was acquitted, may also have been used on retrial to establish all of the essential elements of 2 While the Indiana Supreme Court has overruled … We review the trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion and reverse “only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.”

Mary J. Coate v. Timothy D. Coate (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

[Timothy] shall pay this amount by [Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)] from his [TSP] account with any balance paid within [thirty] days thereafter.” … “A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.” Id.

Isabell v. Trustees of Indiana University The

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2020

Dobrzykowski is barred by qualified immunity. … Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)

Halterman v. Adams County Board of Commissioners

991 N.E.2d 987 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2013

We will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Halterman argues Dr. … If the defendant establishes the lack of that causation, summary judgment is appropriate. Id.

Hamer v. Eberhart

216 Ind. 79 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1939

The number of the qualified remonstrators being less in number than the petitioners, the council adopted a resolution authorizing the bonds issued. … The findings of the court established the foregoing facts, and are not questioned in any manner. A motion for a new trial was not filed.

Caldwell v. Jones

513 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 19, 2007

In short, the facts alleged do not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 649-50 , 83 S.Ct. 1441 (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (citing Williams v. … , whether absolute or qualified, extends to quasi-judicial proceedings such as hearings held by the board of trustees of a school corporation.

Gaddis v. McCullough

827 N.E.2d 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2005

As originally ratified in 1851, the provision allowed a qualified voter "to vote in the township or precinet where he may reside." Ind. … The trial court spelled out clearly for the unsuccessful candidates the problemas with their claim.

Whinery v. Roberson

819 N.E.2d 465 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2004

Furthermore, the SPA specifically states its purpose is to promote efficiency by hiring qualified employees through a merit-based system. Id. at 897 . … Clearly, at some made lower percentage, the SPD's exercise of discretion might be vacated as unreasonable and abusive.

Betty J. Rumell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margo Sue Rumell v. Osolo Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Todd Byrket, Julie Calloway, and Kim Bryan

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2017

status of the Defendants had yet to be conclusively established. … The Estate has not established that such an exemption is warranted.

Greater Hammond Community Service v. Mutka

699 N.E.2d 757 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1998

In 1976, the board of directors for Hammond Opportunity Center amended its articles of incorporation so that it would qualify for federal tax exemption status. … In Ayres , our supreme court addressed the issue of whether a volunteer fire department was entitled to the immunity afforded by the ITCA.

McIlhinny v. McIlhinny

24 L.R.A. 489 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1894

the deed the appellee took possession of the premises conveyed; that the defendant, John Merrill, is the John Merrill mentioned in the deed; that John Payne is now, and was before the beginning of the suit, the legal and qualified … It has long been established law that when used in a will the word “issue” may be a word of purchase or it may be a word of limitation, depending on the testator's intention as^ expressed in the context.

Rogers v. State

814 N.E.2d 695 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2004

From these generalities, the Court extrapolated that statements made during a police "interrogation" would qualify as "testimonial" statements. Id. … also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.

Douglas v. Pickens

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2023

Lastly, all defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly unconstitutional. ECF 99 at 11-12. … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Jeremy Darringer v. State of Indiana

46 N.E.3d 464 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2015

going to be clearly visible at midnight and that is, it’s supposed to be clearly visible. … And the inquiry is not as forgiving as the one employed in the distinct context of deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a constitutional or statutory violation.