Case law

Haire v. Parker

957 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2011

which clearly includes Parker who was likewise operating an ATV.” … law and does not establish the element of breach required for a negligence action.”

Johnson v. Parkview Health Systems, Inc.

801 N.E.2d 1281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2004

If the moving party meets these requirements, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish *1284 genuine issues of material fact for trial. Id. … Also, the facts which she alleged clearly indicated that Jason was a "child" for purposes of the CWDS.

Burns v. Terre Haute Regional Hospital

581 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 1983

Plaintiff clearly meets two of the criteria. … Defendants’ burden is to demonstrate the employee hired other than the plaintiff was as qualified, not more qualified. Bur-dine, supra.

Anderson v. State

157 Ind. App. 440 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1973

The trial court’s findings and conclusions to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to review the determination made by the Parole Board are clearly erroneous. Alcorn v. … At that time the board will establish the date for further consideration of the inmate’s case or authorize immediate reinstatement to parole supervision or discharge. (Ind. Parole Bd.

Casey Corp. v. Big Blue River Conservancy District (In Re Casey Corp.)

46 B.R. 473 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 1985

Additionally, and alternatively, the. evidence clearly establishes extensive, detailed and virtually day-to-day supervision by the Government. … This Court hesitates to change the law of this case, but sees no reason to continue the case against the SCS when the law is clearly against Casey and in favor of the SCS. A.

Promote Innovation LLC v. Roche Diagnostics Corp.

793 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 2011

The decision clearly was not “immune ... to reversal or amendment.” Id. at 1334. This fact is significant. … But this paragraph only invites the Court to engage in speculation based on the existence of a licensing agreement; it in no way establishes intent or knowledge.

Spears v. State

735 N.E.2d 1161 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2000

also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.” … the evidence establishing an essential element of robbery as a Class A felony.

Deryk Hutton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2016

Bollinger, is a qualified polygraph examiner and is qualified by his education, training and experience to testify as an expert witness in interpreting the results of the polygraph examination performed … As noted above, Hutton stipulated the examiner was qualified. He did not challenge the examiner’s qualifications.

Waldron Health Care Home, Inc. v. Magnant

575 N.E.2d 343 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1991

The conclusions construe 470 LA.C. 5-4.1-6(e) and determine Waldron should have realized the regulation clearly applied to its situation. … We agree with the trial court's conclusion that: The language of 6(e) does establish a specific time frame within which the 6(e) request must be made.

Gordy v. State

262 Ind. 275 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1974

The record does not disclose whether or not the Commissioner was ever formally qualified as a judge pro tempore or as a special judge, which the statute authorizes. … The Commissioner was acting as judge, a duty he clearly may assume under the statute if his appointment is procedurally correct.

Bieghler v. State

481 N.E.2d 78 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1985

The evidence above clearly establishes that Appellant entered the Millers' trailer with an intent to kill the Millers. … Juror Seright clearly and irrevocably stated from the outset that he was against the death penalty and could not vote for it under any circumstances.

Haak v. State

275 Ind. 415 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1981

Bixler established that his wife and Mrs. Pawloski are sisters. … We dispose of this case solely on the basis of Marsha Pawloski’s implied bias, and we therefore express no opinion as to whether her sister’s husband, Roger Bixler, was qualified to act as a juror in this case.

Evans v. State

751 N.E.2d 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2001

Because this appeal must be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief, Evans bears the burden of establishing his grounds for post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. … Clearly, prosecutors must honor their promises given in exchange for guilty pleas. Harris v. State, 671 N.E.2d 864, 870 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Santobello v.

Barnett v. State

100 Ind. 171 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1885

If an instruction may be thus separated into fractional parts, so that one portion may not limit and qualify, or extend and explain another portion, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to form an instruction that will … In the fifth instruction requested by appellant, the court was asked to charge the jury, that if the evidence established *180 an old grudge, or hostile declarations, on the part of appellant against the deceased, the jury

Alleshouse v. State

565 N.E.2d 340 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1991

The burden is upon the creditor to establish the debt as squarely within the statutory exceptions. In re Schmidt (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1986), 70 B.R. 634, 638 . … The court found the student’s loans were dis-chargeable because only the agreed-to period qualified as a suspension.

SWANSON v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of Lilly's failure to accommodate under the ADA, Swanson must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Lilly was aware of her disability; and (3) Lilly failed … Because Swanson has failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability, her claim automatically fails, and the Court need not discuss other arguments raised by the parties.

Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds

849 N.E.2d 516 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

The trial court found that “there has been no evidence designated establishing that Dutchmen had actual knowledge of the alleged welding defects in the scaffolding.” … The implications of such a disclaimer as to third party tort claims are not clearly spelled out and as elaborated below, are not made clear by settled judicial precedent.

Akey v. Parkview Hospital, Inc.

941 N.E.2d 540 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2011

We will reverse the court's determination only if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. … Our Supreme Court has not established a specific test for the scientific admissibility of evidence pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b). See id.

City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc.

95 N.E.3d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2018

Hammond alleged the enactment of HEA 1165 “confirms that Hammond qualified for the Fee Exemption in 2014. … Section 23 establishes a requirement of general laws where such can be made in all other cases. Id.

Garrison v. State

589 N.E.2d 1156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1992

Given this finding, it clearly was no abuse of discretion to fail to interrogate the juror. We find no error here. … s comparison testimony because she was not qualified as an expert in graphology. In addition, he cites, inter alia, the case of Spencer v.