Case law

Milledge v. the Oaks

764 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2002

Yankeetown Dock Corp., 491 N.E.2d 969, 975 (Ind.1986) (citing Youngstown for the proposition that "a causal connection between the injury and the employment is clearly necessary to qualify for workman's [sic] compensation … Consequently, the facts of this case lack the requisite causal nexus to establish that Milledge's injury "arose out of" her employment. II.

In Re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star, Jeffrey M. Miller & Cynthia S. Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc. Jennifer Burk

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2012

And here, The Star has clearly chosen to keep the identity of “DownWithTheColts” confidential. The Star did not waive its privilege. … Publication has clearly been established in this case.

Christopher Halterman v. Adams County Board of Commissioners, Adams County Sheriff, Charles Padgett, Adams County Sheriff's Dept. and Adams County Jail

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2013

We will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Halterman argues Dr. … If the defendant establishes the lack of that causation, summary judgment is appropriate.

C.H. v. Payne

683 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 2010

Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. In Gonzaga University v. … There is no Eleventh Amendment prohibition to our consideration of this issue because Defendants waived their immunity by removing this case to federal court on December 23, 2009. See Lapides v.

Estate of Latek v. Ronneau

960 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2012

The Appellants further argue that Bozik’s assertion (under penalties of perjury) in the petition for probate of Latek’s Will is legally insufficient to establish that the signature on the will was Latek’s signature. … Appellants assert that if Bozik can be found to qualify under the statute, at best, he may qualify under subsection (a)(6) which provides for “any other qualified person.”

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lake County Agricultural Society

521 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 1980

The defendants base this proposition on the theory that a “door-closing” statute is clearly a substantive rule under Hanna v. … The plaintiffs’ activities of proselytizing members to their belief, distributing religious material and solicitation of donations clearly constitutes First Amendment expression.

State v. Jones

819 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2004

On June 7, 1999, the trial court conducted a guilty plea hearing, establishing the factual basis for the plea. … Butler subsequently challenged his habitual offender status in a post-conviction proceeding by contending that while the Indiana Code requires two prior substance convictions as class A misdemeanors or felonies *880 to qualify

Gomez v. Chua Medical Corp.

510 N.E.2d 191 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1987

Clearly, the covenants are enforceable in such circumstances. 5 Dr. … However, in Rao, supra, the Seventh Circuit did not expressly rely on the maxims of equity to deny enforcement of a restrictive covenant where a physician was terminated by his medical corporation employer to prevent him from qualifying

Marathon Oil Co. v. Collins

744 N.E.2d 474 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2001

On review, we do not set aside the trial court's findings or judgment unless clearly erroncous. A finding is clearly erroncous when there is no evidence or inferences reasonably drawn therefrom to support it. … To qualify as a part performance of the oral contract certain cireumstances must be present and these circumstances must be founded on, and referable to, the oral agreement.

An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana

975 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2012

Nonetheless “[t]he plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of [I.C. § 35-41-1-1] clearly establishes ‘in Indiana’ as a prerequisite for Indiana criminal prosecutions and thus restricts the power to exercise criminal jurisdiction … First, we are examining a statute which clearly prohibits a very wide range of activity. See Nash v. State, 433 N.E.2d 807, 813 (Ind. Ct.

Surfware, Inc. v. Allied Specialty Precision, Inc.

876 N.E.2d 1156 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2007

The rule does not create *1159 a priority among the subsections establishing preferred venue. … Joseph County would qualify as a county of preferred venue because the accident occurred in St. Joseph county due to the chattel being located there.

Dobbs v. State

237 Ind. 119 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1957

Nor is this a case where the reputation sought to be proved was clearly established by other evidence, or was undisputed and unchallenged. … Appeals here should not be determined by this court speculating on what the jury may have considered clearly established by disputed evidence.

McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.

517 N.E.2d 390 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1988

In addition, Remington and Barbour at the time were presumably concerned only with establishing that McClanahan was not entitled to unemployment benefits. … Whether other administrative proceedings might qualify under Cox is a matter for another day. The trial court's denial of summary judgment to McClanahan is affirmed.

Weaver v. State

583 N.E.2d 136 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1991

The evidence of this crime does not qualify for admission under Valle. While admitting this evidence was error, it was plainly harmless. … At trial, the State clearly established that the body was found in Boone County, thus establishing venue in Boone County by virtue of the portion of the statute providing for venue in the county where the body is found.

Hutchison v. Adomatis

125 Ind. App. 550 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1955

E. 2d 666 : “. . . each specification of error must be so specific and certain as to clearly indicate the particular ruling on which it is based . . .,” and “. . . in considering the sufficiency of such assignment of error … Here, again, they seem to have faltered in their reading of the record for the record discloses positive, direct, competent and undisputed evidence given by a duly qualified expert witness as to the reasonable value of the

Johnson v. State

442 N.E.2d 1065 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1982

The hung jury obviously changed the prosecutor's circumstance and clearly bore no relationship to Appellant's trial. … discretion rests with our trial courts to excuse qualified jurors.

Powell v. State

769 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2002

“An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the … By being qualified to serve as a police officer and having served for a number of years, Powell apparently was able to overcome whatever adversity he might have experienced in his youth.

Michael Damien Howell v. State of Indiana

97 N.E.3d 253 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. … Specifically, Howell asserts that the actual evidence that established the substantial step for the attempted robbery charge is the same evidence that established that he performed an act that created a

Hall v. Cropmate

887 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 23, 1995

The Court clearly held that the concept of promissory estoppel may be used in an ERISA case to make a person a plan participant. Id. at 758 . … To establish detriment, Hall “must show that, had it not been for the promise, he would have obtained comparable medical insurance.” Miller, 39 F.3d at 759 .

Mary Elizabeth Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel

993 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2013

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the foreseeability of a criminal assault on a guest in his motel room. That evidence included, but was not limited to, the following: . . . … Rev. 355 (2003); William Westerbeke, The Application of Comparative Responsibility to Intentional Tortfeasors and Immune Parties, 10 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 189 (2000); J. Tayler Fox, Can Apples Be Compared to Oranges?