Case law

James Satterfield v. State of Indiana

30 N.E.3d 1271 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2015

Because of these strictly defined qualifiers in the case of murder or treason, each request for bail in those instances must be reviewed upon its individual merits. … A decision is an abuse of discretion when it “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

Pastrick v. Geneva Township of Jennings County

474 N.E.2d 1018 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1985

Pastrick's recollection is that the testimony established that she had an unexercised option to purchase. … A mandamus action does not lie to establish a right or to define and impose a duty. Perry Township, supra.

J.D. v. State

859 N.E.2d 341 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2007

s alleged political speech clearly amounted to an abuse of the right to free speech and thus subjected her to accountability under Section 9. Because we find that J.D.' … s shouting was not relevant to establish the charged act of delinquency. Furthermore, she voluntarily engaged in the conduct that included these statements.

Turner v. State

870 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2007

intent more clearly. … Yet, we still find it a challenge to discern the legislature’s entire purpose in increasing the amount owed in order to qualify as a Class C felony.

Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. MCM Enterprises, Inc.

319 B.R. 157 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 2005

However, we review mixed questions of law and fact more deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard. … The sale by the Cook County Collector of the Tax Sale Parcel to Phoenix clearly qualifies as a sale in error under § 21-310, and, consequently, Phoenix would be entitled to compensation for “the amount paid, [and] any interest

In the Matter of the Paternity of M.A.M. State of Indiana by the IV-D Prosecutor of Miami County v. T.M.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2019

[8] Prosecuting attorneys are clearly allowed to file paternity actions. … To qualify Indiana for those funds, our General Assembly established a Child Support Bureau within the Department of Child Services and charged it with “the administration of Title IV-D of the federal Social

Lukis v. Ray

888 N.E.2d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2008

The riparian ... zones clearly establish that Ray possesses the smallest amount of lakeshore ... and in accordance with an apportionment methodology also possesses the smallest riparian zone. … abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory

Norton v. State

772 N.E.2d 1028 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2002

This principle was established by the United States Supreme Court in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). … It has also been established in Indiana that a defendant may waive his claim of a Bruton violation through error. In Latta v.

Burke v. BD. OF DIRECTORS OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY

709 N.E.2d 1036 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1999

The submission of a harassment complaint by one employee against another is clearly within the scope of employment where, as here, the complaint is filed pursuant to the employer’s policy or request and concerns an incident … In addition, Burke has failed to designate evidence establishing that he was terminated for exercising his right to free speech.

Cody J. Chambless v. State of Indiana

119 N.E.3d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2019

[17] As Chambless acknowledges, a trial court may admit hearsay that qualifies under the excited utterance exception. See Ind. Evidence Rule 803(2). … The testimony at trial clearly showed the contrary.

Porter v. State

246 Ind. 701 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1965

verily believes that on the 80th day of January, 1962, at and in the County of Daviess, State of Indiana, before Marshall Jett, then and there Justice of Peace in and for Washington Township in said County, duly elected and qualified … It is claimed that the affidavit is defective because the proper statutory words regarding materiality were not used, and that the materiality of the false statement was not clearly shown.

Harkrider v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co.

513 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1986

IND.CODE 29-1-18-45 clearly permits reasonable compensation for attorney and guardian fees which are discretionary matters for the trial court. Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co., (1983) Ind. … In a not very strict application of A.R. 8.3(A)(7), which requires cogent argument and citation to applicable authorities, we find that only three items appear to qualify as issues. These are: A.

Lucino Jorge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2017

), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 04 2017, 7:42 am court except for the purpose of establishing … But the court did not specify what fees qualified as “standard” nor did it specify the amount for each probation fee.

Lisa Svenstrup v. Thomas Svenstrup

981 N.E.2d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2012

A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206, 1210 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied. … court to order either or both parents to pay sums toward their child’s college education constitutes a reasonable manner in which to enforce the expectation that most families would encourage their qualified

Love v. Rehfus

946 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2011

I ask you [to] support Bob Boyer because he is more qualified for the job and ad- dresses current issues and not made up rumors. Appellant‟s App. 59-60. … We find that Love clearly satisfies the two threshold requirements of Garcetti and Con- nick.

Bonner Ex Rel. Bonner v. Daniels

885 N.E.2d 673 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2008

Clearly, as shown, the Education Clause is subject to judicial enforcement. … All parts of this article are clearly interrelated.

BESECKER v. LOOP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2023

"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." White v. … Qualified immunity, however, is a doctrine established and recognized by the United States Supreme Court and in this Circuit. See Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 638 (7th Cir. 2021).

FMS Nephrology Partners North Central Indiana Dialysis Centers, LLC v. Meritain Health, Inc.

120 N.E.3d 1012 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2019

[17] The Indiana Supreme Court has previously adopted a broad interpretation of what qualifies as an ERISA-related question. … The claims clearly have connection with and refer to the ERISA plan. Id. at 166–67.

Sherry Vernell Webb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2018

We review its rulings for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … The Court: I don’t know that they qualified her in terms of the scientific test regarding residue.

Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

101 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 1999

A plaintiff may establish pretext in two ways. … The undisputed facts before us clearly establish that Lawson suffers from diabetes, a disorder that affects many of the organ systems in his body. 13 Lawson’s diabetes, and its complications, affect Lawson’s metabolic, vascular