Case law

John D. Nellist v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2018

Although we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s legal conclusions, we review the factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. 2004). … The post-conviction court did not clearly err in denying Nellist post-conviction relief. [22] Affirmed. Mathias, J., and Bradford, J. concur.

Young v. State

266 Ind. 557 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1977

It was, for the most part, unsupportive of a claim of insanity, although it did contain the following concluding statements: “Summarily, Benny clearly is able at this time to comprehend the nature of the charges against him … Both witnesses qualified as experts by reason of their educational backgrounds and extensive experience in the area of psychological testing; and their testimony constituted substantial evidence of probative value.

McFadden v. Ross

93 Ind. 134 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1883

McFadden was, on the 26th day of March, 1880, by the Shelby Circuit Court, appointed administrator of the estate of Joseph Nichols, deceased, and that he lawfully qualified as such administrator; that James R. … When, therefore, the cause was submitted upon petition and answer, no proof was necessary to establish the allegations.of the petition.

Z C v. Review Board

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2023

Thus, Z.C. argues that “[he] qualifies.” Id. [19] We, however, disagree. … Therefore, the Department was clearly within the statutory timeframe during which it could notify Z.C. of the overpayment and begin seeking repayment.

Shook Heavy & Environmental Construction Group v. City of Kokomo

632 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1994

Allowing unsuccessful bidders to seek injunctive relief when statutory procedures are not adhered to clearly would further this goal. … Clearly an unsuccessful bidder has no common law cause of action against the party soliciting bids if another bidder is chosen.

Family & Social Services Administration v. Calvert

672 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1996

DDARS must contract for the adult protective services required in each county with the prosecuting attorney, with a governmental entity qualified to provide the services required, or with a combination of the two. … seeking relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discre *493 tion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Yovanda R. Vaughn, individually and as special representative of the Estate of Anderson Vaughn, Jr. v. Christopher T. Haughn, M.D., Evansville Surgical Associates (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2015

We reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or … The intricacies of laparoscopic surgery are clearly a complex subject matter that requires expert evidence. As such, we decline to apply the common knowledge exception to this case.

Scott Shields v. Town of Perrysville

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2019

Here, the fact-finder was free to accept Bowman’s opinion and reject the surveyor’s as being so qualified as to be unreliable. … Thus, the court did not clearly err in rejecting a claim of abandonment. 2 [18] The judgment is not clearly erroneous. [19] Affirmed.

Hinrichs v. Bosma

410 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2006

But comity does not amount to immunity from the United States Constitution. Adams v. … . § 1983 clearly provides for relief when state officials violate federal constitutional rights). IV. Likelihood of Success A.

Childress Cattle, LLC v. The Estate of Roger F. Cain, Christie Cain, Personal Representative

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2017

[17] The Dead Man’s Statute provides that it “does not apply to a custodian or other qualified witness to the extent the witness seeks to introduce evidence that is Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion … [to Childress Cattle] match precisely to particular invoices, while other payments made by the Estate are clearly partial payments toward the total account balance with Childress [Cattle].”

Silvers v. Canary

114 Ind. 129 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1888

Silvers his widow was duly qualified as administratrix of his estate, and Samuel H. … Silvers was duly appointed and qualified as guardian of the persons and estates of Eva R. and Ellen Louise Silvers, the latter being still infants.

Plaka v. Drinski

811 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 1993

Alternatively, Drinski argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Newton County argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that there is no constitutional violation. … Clearly, they had probable cause to believe that their lives were in danger if they did not return Ruhl’s fire. 763 F.Supp. at 396 .

Hays v. Morgan

87 Ind. 231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

But when he in the affidavit qualifies the general charges of bias and prejudice, by alleging the reasons which induced him to make them, and the reasons were that the judge had made a ruling and rendered a decision against … It was *236 clearly irrelevant and immaterial, but we do not see bow it could harm or benefit either party.

Andy Mohr West, Inc. v. Office of the Indiana Secretary of State

41 N.E.3d 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2015

Thus, Section 9-32-13-24(e) clearly contemplates the relocation of a “proposed [NMV] dealer.” … ’s intent to “establish or relocate the proposed [NMV] dealer.”

Bissell v. Wert

35 Ind. 54 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1871

It is well settled, both by authority and on principle, that the evidence offered was clearly inadmissible. The general rule is, that witnesses must speak to facts, and that mere opinions are not admissible. … It seems to be established law that in civil as well as in criminal cases, a party cannot be found guilty of a crime, unless upon proof which excludes all reasonable doubt.

Shields v. State

149 Ind. 395 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1897

Robinson by appellant shows clearly that he was examined, not only as to his knowledge of the facts of the case, but also as a medical expert, the State therefore was entitled to cross-examine him as such, not only concerning … It follows, therefore, under the established rule that the instructions are to be considered as a whole, that said instruction, when so considered, was not erroneous.

Amber Hamilton v. Steak 'n Shake Operations Inc.

92 N.E.3d 1166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2018

The law is well established that a person entering upon the land of another comes upon the land as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. … On the other hand, a proprietor/landowner should not be afforded absolute immunity from harm that occurs while on their premises.

ROBERTS v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2023

immunity." … The Court notes that since the Parties filed that Motion, the previously established deadlines for their initial disclosures and preliminary witness and exhibit lists have passed. [Dkt. 40.]

Merhow Industries, Inc. v. United States

517 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 1981

Clearly, there are exceptions to the full payment rule. … And as a waiver of sovereign immunity section 1346 is to be strictly construed. United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656 , 51 S.Ct. 284 , 75 L.Ed. 598 (1931).

Holtz v. Bd. of Com'rs of Elkhart County

560 N.E.2d 645 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1990

Affidavits filed by the Board established that Holtz was an employee at will and that he did not file a notice of tort claim. The affidavits were not controverted. … The immunity provided by the Tort Claims Act applies only to a "loss" which is defined by Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5 -2(e): "Loss" means injury to or death of a person, or damage to property.