Case law

Davis v. All American Siding & Windows, Inc.

897 N.E.2d 936 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2008

“This general rule may be altered by a written agreement by the parties or by the conduct of the parties which clearly demonstrates a different compensation scheme.” Id. … We conclude that the Agreement does not establish a clear and unambiguous intent to terminate Davis’s commission payments upon his termination.

Sherwood v. State

717 N.E.2d 131 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1999

Pursuant to Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 24, the court appointed qualified lead counsel and co-counsel to defend Sherwood. … Here, Sherwood’s competence to stand trial was properly established, and the trial court’s holding in that regard is not challenged on appeal.

Terre Haute First National Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co.

634 N.E.2d 1336 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1994

"It is the nature of the claim, not its merit, which establishes the insurer's duty to defend." Id. … If the pleadings disclose that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, no defense is required. Id.

Willis v. Cohn

747 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 1990

DISCUSSION Having established this factual and procedural background, the Court now turns to the issues raised in this habeas corpus proceeding. … Specifically, Willis stated he would cooperate in exchange for immunity (R. 638-39). 14 When discussions with the prosecutor’s office indicated no such immunity would be forthcoming, Willis advised Hawkins they had “nothing

Helm v. Helm

873 N.E.2d 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2007

We will set aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. … We have little trouble concluding that the lottery payments at issue in this case qualified as a “presently fixed right to future enjoyment[,]” very closely analogous to the annuity at issue in Sedwick .

DeWalt v. Greencroft Goshen, Inc.

902 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2012

To qualify for the administrative exemption under the FLSA, an employee’s primary job duties must be exempt work. 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). Job title alone does not establish the exempt status of an employee. … All three of DeWalt’s inquiries clearly indicated DeWalt’s concern about misclassification.

Chicago, Indiana & Eastern Railway Co. v. Wysor Land Co.

163 Ind. 288 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1904

The same was clearly sufficient to withstand the demurrer for want of facts. … Moore (1882), 84 Ind. 496 , a proceeding to establish a public highway, it was held that opinions of witnesses were not admissible to show the values of the land across which the road was to be located, “with, and without

Zachary v. Zachary (In Re Zachary)

99 B.R. 916 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 1989

Thus, he asserts that he has complied with the time deadlines established in Rule 4003. In making his argument, the debtor cites to numerous cases which establish a liberal amendment policy in such cases. … As such, it qualifies as a security interest rather than a judicial lien.”)

Kuespert v. State

177 Ind. App. 142 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1978

However, IC 4-12-l-13(b), supra, clearly excepts persons whose salaries are fixed by the governor from the auspices of the budget agency’s salary-fixing power. … Therefore, the salary-fixing procedure for State Police employees qualifies as one of the exceptions enumerated in IC 4-12-1-13(b), supra, and the Budget Agency is without power to set salaries for State Police employees.

Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission v. Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc.

27 N.E.3d 802 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2015

partnership or limited partnership that owns the business establishment; (3) a member of a limited liability company that owns the business establishment … Indiana Code chapter 7.1-1-3 provides definitions that shall be applied throughout Title 7.1 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

State v. Ensley

177 Ind. 483 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1912

construction, thoroughly settled, is that where a statute has been construed by the courts of a state, and is thereafter substantially reenacted, the legislature thereby adopts such construction, unless the contrary is clearly … Law §417, it is said: “A demand is not necessary to establish a conversion, but is only an evidence of it. ’ ’ To the same effect see 28 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.) 706, and 15 Cyc. 522. 10.

United States ex rel. S & G Excavating, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

93 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2000

[if it is] clearly shown that certain types of suits are not consistent with the statutory or constitutional scheme, that an implied restriction of the general authority is necessary to avoid grave interference with the performance … Cir.1994) (concluding that the CDA is not the exclusive basis for litigation of claims relating to *972 government contracts, and that the CDA did not eliminate subject matter jurisdiction over subcontractors’ actions to establish

VPG GROUP HOLDINGS LLC v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 28, 2020

Although the Supreme Court has not defined "objectively reasonable," the Seventh Circuit has developed a definition that borrows from qualified-immunity doctrine. … It is clearly established that diversity jurisdiction exists only with complete diver- sity of parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

State Ex Rel. Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. Northouse

848 N.E.2d 668 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2006

Drafting and preparing testamentary and trust documents is clearly the practice of law. … Conclusion, Injunction, and Costs The evidence establishes that Northouse and Ramer have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Dean v. Kruse Foundation, Inc., Dean Kruse and Kruse International v. Jerry W. Gates

973 N.E.2d 583 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2012

Kruse also stated that the earnest money was used to pre-qualify bidders for participation in the auction. … First, a party seeking to enforce a liquidated damages provision must demonstrate some proportionality between the loss and the sum established as liquidated damages. Harbours Condominium Ass’n , Inc. v.

Claypool v. Jaqua

135 Ind. 499 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1893

The pleadings and exhibits, as shown by the record, establish the following facts, beyond controversy, and faithfully tell the story of the case: That the appellee Eliza, prior to January 1, 1887, was . a widow, and one Setli … We think, clearly not. The widow’s statutory claim to $500 is not an interest in the estate of the decedent, but is a preferred claim payable out of the personal estate, if sufficient for the purpose.

Darreus Rainwater v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2016

In other words, to establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that, under the circumstances, the trial judge erred in not sua sponte raising the issue because the alleged errors (1) constitute clearly … He also claims that the prosecutor improperly argued during closing argument that he could have given Porter immunity. Id. at 399. We find no misconduct in either example.

Perdue v. Murphy

938 N.E.2d 766 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2010

The Court found "the interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing … Perdue's claim of discrimination under the acts required her to establish: she is disabled; she is otherwise qualified for the benefits sought; she was excluded from participation or benefits because of her disability, and

MCGOFFNEY v. SWEENEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2025

McGoffney must "clearly establish" that "there is newly discovered evidence or that there has been a manifest error of law or fact." Harrington v. … She raises a variety of arguments, see dkt. 14 at 6–18, but none of them explain why Judge Sweeney would not be entitled to immunity for his decisions in Ms. McGoffney's civil rights action.

Michael N. Payne, M.D. v. Carmel Physician Surgery Center, LLC, Carmel Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, and Weldon T. Egan, M.D. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2019

Immunity from Liability 1. … [62] Based on this undisputed evidence, even though Payne technically no longer qualified for membership in the Holding Company due to a lack of hospital privileges and failure to perform the required