Case law

Althaus v. Evansville Courier Co.

615 N.E.2d 441 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1993

The Sunshine Law clearly indicates that the public is to have access to the public records of the government officials who represent the citizenry. … We emphasize a coroner has the initial burden of showing a requested document qualifies as an investigatory record.

Hernandez v. State

716 N.E.2d 948 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1999

status were not properly admitted, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to establish his habitual offender status. … A reading of the exhibits reveals that each is a complete document clearly referring to the same 1989 murder charge: Cause Number 18D01-8811-CF-46 appears on both documents.

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.

Humphreys v. State

984 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2013

Analysis If our habitual-offender statute is generally a “three strikes” law, then subsection 8(b)(3) establishes that a defendant cannot strike out on a foul tip. … Our decision in Owens’s companion ease noted that while the statutory language is less than clear, its “thrust is unmistakable: while a single felony drug conviction is not enough to qualify a person for habitual offender

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

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.

Hennings v. State

638 N.E.2d 811 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1994

In Matter of O'Brien (1982), Ind., 437 N.E.2d 972 , the court reviewed a case in which an attorney acted as an advocate then qualified and acted as judge pro tempore in the cause. … Clearly there is no incentive for the attorney formerly acting as decision-maker to question the propriety of his rulings on appeal once he has assumed the role of advocate.

Robert C. Mills v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Shirley Starks, Kristen L. Sparks, Melanie Reising, and Elizabeth Herrmann

76 N.E.3d 879 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2017

sought relief; DCS was subject to the ADEA and was therefore statutorily excluded from the definition of employer under the IADA; and Mills’s claim for monetary damages under the ADEA was barred by the State’s sovereign immunity … | Opinion 82A01-1606-PL-1482 | April 28, 2017 Page 9 of 21  States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Shaw v. State

595 N.E.2d 743 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1992

Therefore, proof that the defendant's condition renders driving unsafe is sufficient to establish endangerment. Id. … Shaw argues that since the officer was not trained in the maintenance of the machine, he was not qualified to testify as to the workings of the Intoxilyzer.

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.

Affeldt v. Whitcomb

319 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 1970

. § 29-3426 (Burns’ Repl.1969) and Ind.Const. art. 2, § 2 in order for an Indiana resident to be qualified to vote, defendant Ruge refused to allow Don Affeldt to register. … While plaintiffs state that they do not challenge the right of Indiana to establish reasonable standards of residence, 2 they do contest its right to establish in the above statutory and constitutional provisions a six-month

Cua v. Ramos

418 N.E.2d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1981

His decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Smith v. Midwest Insurance Co., (1972) 154 Ind.App. 259 , 289 N.E.2d 788 . … The defense of qualified privilege and an allegation of malice which would overcome the privilege were in issue at trial. .

MATTINGLY v. MARION SUPERIOR COURT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2023

Defendants argue that this immunity bars Ms. … (finding district court properly determined Assistant State's Attorneys had inherent policymaking authority, clearly defined by statute).

"F.B.C.", a Pseudonym v. MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDWISE, MDWISE NETWORK, INC., and MDWISE MARKETPLACE, INC.

122 N.E.3d 834 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2019

F.B.C. has failed to establish that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Disclosure claim. II. … Restatement (Third) of Torts § 46 cmt. e (2012) (“Although an actor exercising legal rights is not liable . . . merely for exercising those rights, the actor is not immunized from liability if the conduct

Selch v. Letts

792 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 1992

For each work activity, the manual also established performance standards. … immunity into a defense of virtual absolute immunity.

Indiana Department of Child Services v. A.B.

949 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2011

It is acceptable that the legislature has established a process for the state to pay for placement and a process for the county to be ultimately responsible. … But we cannot agree that the new provision is immune from any judicial review whatsoever. It is well established that Article 7 section 4 of the Indiana Constitution confers plenary appellate jurisdiction on this Court.

Turner v. Richmond Power and Light Co.

756 N.E.2d 547 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2001

In reviewing a trial court's findings of facts and judgment, we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. Magness, 744 N.E.2d at 401 . … Thereafter, Citizens filed a summary judgment motion with the court arguing that it was entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Id.

Barnes v. Clayton

590 N.E.2d 1112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1992

Both of the above provisions clearly refer to the removal of an individual who is already serving as a commissioner. … Indiana Code 36-8-3.5-l(b) states in part: Each elected commission member must: (1) be a person of good moral character; and (2) except for a member of a fire department having a merit system established under IC 19-1-37.5

Griese-Traylor Corp. v. Lemmons

424 N.E.2d 173 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1981

The corporation shows that it has no business establishment, neither hires nor retains employees, solicits no business, and is not qualified to do business in the state of Indiana. … It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized.” 204 F.Supp. at 131-132 .

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Herring-Jenkins

830 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2011

These factors “may establish the existence of a relationship between the individual and the insured automobile.” Id. … The deputy, in contrast, had clearly been using the vehicle prior to positioning it to control the scene.