Case law

Olayan v. Holder

833 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2011

Specifically, he asserts that the IJ’s decision granting him asylum is immune from collateral attack. … Next, he provides a laundry list of reasons why he believes he does not qualify for a mandatory denial of asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (c)(2). Id. at 11 .

Jones

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2026

Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability. … To the extent any time gap does exist between Plaintiff’s FMLA leave and the alleged retaliation, the Amended Complaint does not clearly reveal it.

Aide v. Chrysler Financial Corp.

699 N.E.2d 1177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1998

As a matter of law, Aide has failed to establish that class counsel provided inadequate representation. 2 II. … The release clearly prohibits Aide from litigating the claim in a state court absent dismissal of Sanders. III.

Benjamin J. Selig v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2019

[5] An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … [6] Under the circumstances of this case, Selig has failed to establish an abuse of discretion.

BOUYE v. HOWARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 2025

Bouye's Eighth Amendment rights.4 4 At trial, Sergeant Williams argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there is no established case law discussing the … immunity.

Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.

641 N.E.2d 1275 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1994

If Wior's version of the events is believed, then the parties' intention with regard to the permanent nature of the employment is clearly manifested and there is no requirement of independent consideration. … The "distinguishing factors" include that: 1) an employee uniquely qualified for the position; 2) who had "lifetime employment" with the previous employer; 3) was recruited by the new employer for a unique position; 4) advised

Figert v. State

686 N.E.2d 827 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1997

Probable cause clearly existed with respect to the first two homes, and the totality of the circumstances established some suspicion or possibility of a joint drug-dealing enterprise at the Farm. But this is not enough. … In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home_” Payton v.

Indiana State Department of Public Welfare v. Lifelines of Indianapolis Ltd. Partnership

637 N.E.2d 1349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1994

To qualify for assistance, a state must devise a scheme for reimbursing health care providers and have that plan approved by the Secretary of Health & Human Services. … Congress clearly intended to allow the states to engage in price-conscious “shopping” for services for Medicaid recipients. Mary Washington, 635 F.Supp. at 899 .

Pickens v. State

767 N.E.2d 530 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 10, 2002

One or more arrests, standing alone, do not establish the "history of criminal or delinquent activity" aggravator to enhance a sentence. See Ind.Code § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(2); Sherwood v. … The trial court's conclusion that the defendant abused the victim prior to the crime is not clearly erroneous. We find no error.

Henry Swanigan v. Founders Insurance Company and Ronnie Watson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2015

[8] Although an insurer has the right to limit their coverage of risks, the limitation is enforceable only if clearly expressed and consistent with public policy. Stonington Ins. Co. v. … “[I]f a person qualifies as an insured under the liability section of the policy, he must also qualify under the uninsured motorist section or the insurance contract violates public policy.”

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corp. v. Stichnoth

877 N.E.2d 475 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2007

Although invitation does not in itself establish the status of an invitee, it is essential to it. … Ber-la’s testimony to establish Justin’s lost earnings and impaired earning capacity as a result of his injuries. Dr.

Campbell v. Shelton

727 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 3, 2000

With regard to the court’s final comment, Campbell contends that it constituted error because: “Clearly, an endorsement by a trial court that a witness is an expert in his or her field places in a juror’s mind the idea that … State, 45 Ind. 175 (1873), a suit was filed to establish paternity.

Robinson v. Moser

203 Ind. 66 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1931

The fact that the people usually do have this right arises incidentally from the provisions of the Constitution, but as shown by the authorities hereinbefore cited the right is clearly subject to the qualification made by … The court here fails to recognize and give effect to the well-established rule that fixing the time for the commencement of a term of office at a date subsequent, to the expiration of an incumbent’s term causes a vacancy

Justin Hoskins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2019

), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 21 2019, 7:45 am court except for the purpose of establishing … The judge has “considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed,” and we will reverse only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

L. S. Ayres & Co. Et Al. v. IPALCO Et Al.

169 Ind. App. 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1976

Consequently such customers cannot qualify for Rate J. … However, the establishment of availability does not automatically establish the Plant as used and useful or reasonably necessary for rate-making purposes.

Ferguson v. O'Bryan

996 N.E.2d 428 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2013

Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d at 995 (noting that the privity rule “has vanished evolutionarily during the twentieth century” and now “it is well-established that privity is not always required”). In Walker v. … the Relatives were identified was not created until after the will was drafted, they clearly do not fall within this category.

Regan v. City of Hammond

331 F. Supp. 3d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 2018

General public safety by ensuring contractors are qualified to do the work and are aware of safety regulations; 2. … Plaintiffs also make a cursory argument that the ordinances violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the court declines to consider this argument as part of their motion for summary judgment.

Romine v. State

431 N.E.2d 780 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1982

Clearly the court erred in its interpretation of the statutory sentencing provision; just as clearly the court strictly complied with subsection “d” of Ind.Code § 35—4.1-1-3, supra, for the court twice stressed to defendant … Jenkins, (1978) 268 Ind. 478 , 377 N.E.2d 868 , he asserts inmates serving determinate terms such as his ten-year sentence did not qualify for parole.

Longest ex rel. Longest v. Sledge

992 N.E.2d 221 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2013

More is required to establish dependency for the purposes of the GWDS. … The trial court clearly considered the reasonableness of the $350/hour billable rate.

Jm v. Da

935 N.E.2d 1235 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2010

In Thomas , the father argued that being a full-time student does not qualify as a "work-related activity" for which childcare expenses may be reimbursed. 834 N.E.2d at 1059 . … Thus, we cannot say that the trial court's finding was clearly erroneous.