Case law

State v. Gerhardt

33 L.R.A. 313 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1896

This provision, I think, clearly attempts to invest these inferior officials with an arbitrary, undefined, and unlimited power to determine who, and who may not, be entitled to the privilege of conducting some other lawful … The 23d section of the Bill of Bights provides, that ‘The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens

Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Commission

926 N.E.2d 504 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 2010

Thus, Chapo established the propriety of an award of attorney fees incurred when she was forced to defend against a frivolous and groundless claim. … In its Brief, Jefferson County claims that "the award of fees is punitive in nature and [Jefferson County] as a government entity is thus immune from such judgments."

Boykins v. State

470 N.E.2d 765 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1984

R.P.C. 1 and that a petitioner could sue-cessfully seek post conviction relief in a particular case under Ind.R.P.C. 1, notwithstanding that he would fail to qualify for consideration on the merits under Ind.R.P.C. 2. … Armstrong, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 349 , and its progeny clearly is misplaced. Travelers changed the quantum of proof required to establish punitive damages. It did not, however, alter the burden of proof.

Joshuah Rainbolt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2018

In fact, the burden is on the defendant to establish that a proffered mitigating factor is both significant and “clearly supported by the record,” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 493, if he alleges that the … State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1141 (Ind. 2002); (holding that age does not automatically qualify as a mitigator, despite youth); Spears v.

D & T Sanitation, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

443 N.E.2d 1207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1983

This amounts to oppressive conduct which clearly comes under the standard in Art Hill Ford, Inc., supra. There was the testimony of Mr. … Callender (1981), Ind., 423 N.E.2d 601 , Justice Hunter had established a standard of “cogent and convincing proof.” I do not see that “clear and convincing evidence” is much different.

Roy C. Robinson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2025

Because Robinson has failed to establish that duplicity in the charges against him warranted a unanimity instruction, he has failed to establish fundamental error.3 II. … Here, it is true that each offense clearly permits multiple punishments for multiple victims.

Thompson v. Reagle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2025

still must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Additionally, a plaintiff can establish intentional discrimination through a showing of deliberate indifference. Lacy v. Cook Cty., Illinois, 897 F.3d 847, 863 (7th Cir. 2018).

Hardebeck v. State

656 N.E.2d 486 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1995

The English system was established in 1907. Appellate review of a sentence in England is essentially de novo. … Hardebeck claims that the trial court added two factors to the sentencing order which were not clearly articulated during the sentencing hearing.

McKnight v. Taylor

210 F. Supp. 3d 1069 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2016

It is well-established that “[t]hreaten[ing] a police officer with a deadly weapon” qualifies as an action placing the officer and his comrades in imminent danger of harm and justifying the use of deadly force. … immunity also turned on the reasonableness of Officer Taylor's belief that McKnight was wielding a gun, rather than a phone.

Michael L. Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2020

Hollandsworth testified that Clark clearly knew what she and J.B. were arguing about when he intervened because J.B. was loudly and repeatedly saying, “You owe me for laundry.” Tr. Vol. 1 at 179. … comment during rebuttal in any way confused or misled the jurors as to their role as factfinders regarding the self-defense claim, the comment was isolated and, when viewed in context, would hardly qualify

Fong v. Purdue University

692 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 1988

Here, this court is required to decide a much narrower dispute within clearly established parameters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. … In the ease of charges of incompetence, the testimony on this point should include that of qualified scholars.

Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. Baker

37 Ind. App. 405 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1906

The complaint clearly states the cause of appellee’s injury, and that cause was the negligent collision of two of appellant’s trains going in opposite directions. … The evidence also establishes the fact that appellee was injured. 3.

In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.L. (Minor Child), and J.F. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2018

All rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations, any rights to custody, parenting time or support, pertaining to the relationship are permanently terminated, including the need to … App. 2015), trans. denied.5 [29] Waiver notwithstanding, the evidence clearly established that DCS has a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment.

Sinclair Refining Co. v. McCullom

107 Ind. App. 356 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 1940

It clearly appears that these conversations were not held in the presence of appellant and that there was no showing that the other parties to the conversation were not available as witnesses, and there was obviously no element … It is evident that the sole purpose of eliciting the facts stated by the witness was to establish the fact that appellee was unable to secure employment or retain his employment with subsequent employers.

Hoffman v. Romack

212 Ind. 421 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1937

He qualified and assumed the duties of his trust. … The finding of the court clearly established that the Sharpsville Bank was a private bank; that the owners (stockholders) operated the same until April 15, 1933, when they placed it in voluntary liquidation, as provided by

Seema Kapoor Shiv Kapoor Performance Support Consulting, LLC Matt Judson and Regional Construction Services, Inc. v. Steve Dybwad Cronin Insurance Services, Inc. Mark Light

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2015

The above provisions clearly absolve WTB of any duty to Plaintiffs to provide tax, legal, or financial advice. … , non-qualified, and flexible compensation programs for clients across the country.

Stanton v. Ash

384 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 1974

Clearly that is an interest shared by all citizens. Cf. Sehlesinger, supra, 94 S.Ct. at 2930 ; United States v. … Cohen, supra, to establish taxpayer standing.

Scott

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2026

Morris, the Indiana Supreme Court discussed both decisions and reaffirmed Foster, recognizing only a narrow exception for the termination of public employment in violation of clearly established free speech rights. 849 … Both applied the immunity; neither carved out an exception from it. Accordingly, the City’s motion is granted as to Count V.

Coddington v. Turner, Rec.

85 Ind. App. 604 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1923

The facts as found by the coúrt are, in substance, as follows: When appellee Turner qualified as receiver, the canning company, being in possession of the property described in the petition,' turned the same over to the receiver … They are not attempting to establish á claim against the estate in the hands of the receiver, or asking for the enforcement of a lien against the property in the hands of the receiver.

Allianz Insurance Co. v. Guidant Corp.

884 N.E.2d 405 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2008

Killacky may not offer opinion testimony because he has not been qualified as an expert in this matter.... 4. Allianz’s reliance on Reeder v. Harper, 788 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind.2003)[,] is clearly misplaced. … After reviewing the three Dear Doctor letters, we simply cannot conclude that they qualify as advisory memoranda.