Case law

Sherman v. Hogland

73 Ind. 472 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1881

The third instruction given by the court is as follows: “Fraud is never presumed, but must be clearly proven. … If it had qualified the general proposition asserted, by adding words limiting the rule to cases where some consideration had been paid, then its refusal would have given appellants just ground of complaint.

Back v. Carter

933 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 30, 1996

The Lake County JNC was established in 1973 pursuant to Indiana Code section 33-5-29.5-1 et seq. … Defendant Bayh argues that the Court should dismiss the action against him because he is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Stockwell v. Whitehead

47 Ind. App. 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1911

The complaint specifically avers, not as a recital, but as an allegation of substantive fact, “that the above-mentioned subscribers, including defendant, appointed Louis Weinsheimer, at that time the duly qualified and acting … Clearly the contract with appellee, marked exhibit B, is in ac *429 cordanee Avith the agreement marked exhibit A, for the latter agreement certainly authorizes the money subscribed to be used for the purchase of broken rock

Deasy-Leas v. Leas

693 N.E.2d 90 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1998

The specter of confidentiality is again raised in Chapter 3 of Article 33 providing for the establishment of a multi-disciplinary “community child protection team.” IND. CODE § 31-33-3-1 (1997 Supp.). … The entire statutory framework with regard to children is clear as to the reporting of instances of child abuse and neglect; even statutorily created privileges are qualified to except communications regarding child abuse

Johns v. State

159 Ind. 413 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1902

In a later case the same court said: “A rule of criminal plead *416 ing, which at one time obtained in some of the circuits, and perhaps received a qualified sanction from this court in United Stales v. … Darlington, 153 Ind. 1 , 2: “It is generally true, as a rule of criminal pleading, that, where the principal act or acts constituting the offense are clearly defined by the statute, it is sufficient to charge the offense

In Re Snider Farms, Inc.

125 B.R. 993 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 1991

Thus, good faith alone does not immunize a party from a civil contempt sanction for noncompliance with a Court order. McLean v. Central State, etc., 762 F.2d 1204 , 1210 (4th Cir.1985). … This the Trustee has clearly shown, and the Court finds the Respondent in civil contempt of this Court for knowingly violating the orders of this court.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.B., Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2015

[5] While the appeal in Best II was pending, Russell filed a petition to establish guardianship over M.B.’s person in Boone Superior Court. … attend the guardianship hearing and that she could testify if called as a witness. 3 The trial court’s dismissal of Mariea’s petition for replacement was “without prejudice if [Russell] (a) is found not qualified

T.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2015

The juvenile court overruled T.J.’s objection and admitted the autopsy report; however, the juvenile court qualified its ruling by stating that Dr. … “Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and only reverse if a ruling is clearly against the

Beer Distributor of Indiana, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission

431 N.E.2d 836 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1982

I.C. 7.1-3-2-4 provides: A brewer or other person located outside this state who is desirous of selling beer to an Indiana permittee for importation into, and resale in Indiana, in order to qualify under this title, shall … This section clearly establishes a residency requirement for partnerships and corporations.

Doe v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 13, 2022

Finally, Defendants assert that Roe’s individual §1983 claims also fail based on a lack of Due Process or Equal Protections violations and qualified immunity. … individual capacity (Rollock (Count VII), and Sermersheim (Count VIII)) based on a lack of equal protection or due process offense, and qualified immunity.

Hall v. Fivecoat

110 Ind. App. 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1942

Hall died intestate and unmarried, in and a resident of Bartholomew County, Indiana, leaving administratable assets in said county; that Irwin-Union Trust Co. is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator of this … When therefore the word ‘child,’ or ‘children,’ or ‘brother,’ or ‘sister,’ is used in the statute of descent, it must be held to mean legitimate child, children, brother or sister, unless the language of the statute clearly

West v. State

938 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2010

Hardiman was not charged for his role in the crime, but was granted use immunity for his testimony in the case pursuant to a plea agreement he entered into in an unrelated federal criminal case. … Furthermore, this court accepts the post-conviction court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Bigler v. State, 732 N.E.2d 191, 194 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trams, demied.

Adams v. Indiana

622 F. Supp. 1478 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 27, 1985

The Act clearly prohibits this court from issuing an injunction in this case if a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” exists in the Indiana courts. Rosewell v. … The first is that in order for Parratt to apply, the loss of property must be occasioned by a random, unauthorized act of a state employee, and not by conduct pursuant to established state procedure. Logan v.

Vaughn v. State

782 N.E.2d 417 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2003

The operative facts which were used to establish that Vaughn and Currier had previously been "living as if a spouse" of the other were that they had lived together and that they had an intimate sexual relationship. 3 To establish … However, that choice of words was inadvertent because the trial court was clearly not acquitting Vaughn of battery, but rather, did not enter judgment on the charge of battery because the double jeopardy problem would have

Patterson v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.

475 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 1979

Thus, it is clearly established by the various federal courts that punitive damages may not be awarded, e. g., Pearson v. Western Electric Co., 542 F.2d 1150, 1151-2 (10th Cir. 1976); EEOC v. … Only if there are no qualified bidders for the vacancy(ies), Youngstown may obtain new hires as mason apprentices. E.

Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi

814 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2004

Indeed, statutes are presumptively constitutional until clearly proven otherwise by the challenger. See Clint's Wrecker Serv., Inc., 440 N.E.2d at 740 . … [There is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate.

Baumgart Ex Rel. Baumgart v. DeFries

888 N.E.2d 199 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2008

The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified settlement … We find that the Baumgarts amply established that they incurred attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $1000.

Daniels v. Hutson

489 N.E.2d 107 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1986

(emphasis supplied) While this language clearly authorizes the State Board to order a county welfare director's removal, the statute does not indicate that such authority is exclusively vested with the State Board. … Inclusion on an eligibility list presumes that an individual has been found qualified by an entrance test. IC 4-15-2-3(J).

Maurice McClung, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 30 2020, 11:24 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Discussion [10] The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Fisher v.

Rosenthal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 2026

This would mean she financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. But that is of no moment here because reviewing Clark’s allegations liberally as the Court must do, her complaint must be dismissed. … And nothing in the complaint establishes who any of the Defendants are, or how they would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.