Case law

Loubser v. United States

606 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2009

However, it is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. McNeil v. … Loubser’s three submissions consist of one thousand one-hundred eighty-nine (1,189) pages, 18 are not accompanied by a proper motion, and clearly go beyond the established boundaries set forth by Local Rule 7.1, this Court

Matter of Guardianship of Posey

513 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

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.

Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of Muncie

215 Ind. 330 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1939

It is contended that the act is unconstitutional in that it attempts to grant to a class of citizens privileges or immunities which, upon the same'terms, do not equally belong to all citizens; that, since the properties of … Clearly the act was intended to confer such power, and no reason is seen why the legislature might not do so.

Wyatt v. Wheeler

936 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2010

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err by denying Wyatt's request for a preliminary injunetion. … Consequently, Wyatt has not established that the court's denial of his request for declaratory relief was contrary to law.

State ex rel. Willard Library v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Public Library

848 N.E.2d 1162 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2006

Willard’s status as a private entity should not make it immune from the procedural and other property tax controls that constrain local governments. … This language clearly indicates that the political subdivision may fix a budget and tax levy that is less than the published amount.

Corcoran v. Buss

483 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 2007

That ruling was an unreasonable application of these clearly established United States Supreme Court precedents. … The cases in this Court since Jackson have clearly established that not every burden on the exercise of a constitutional right, and not every pressure or encouragement to waive such a right, is invalid.

Christopher B. Elliott v. First String Products LLC, First String USA, and Firstring LLC (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2019

A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn … As a result, Elliott did not put forth any admissible expert witness evidence to establish a dispute of material fact as to causation.

David Pannell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

36 N.E.3d 477 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2015

We accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not give deference to the court’s conclusions of law. Id. … , there is no indication in the record that the State qualified Officer Wefler as an expert.

Bishop v. State ex rel. Griner

39 L.R.A. 278 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1898

Bishop, at the November election of 1894, was elected township trustee of Bear creek township, in Jay county, Indiana, for a term of four years, and that on the 6th day of August, 1895, he duly qualified as such trustee, … The information under this provision of the code must state facts sufficient to show clearly a forfeiture of the office in controversy. Chambers v. State, 127 Ind. 365 , 11 L. R.

Messer v. Cerestar USA, Inc.

803 N.E.2d 1240 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2004

Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991), our Supreme Court established a test to be utilized when determining whether a duty exists. … Indiana Evidence Rule 702 requires that an expert be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.

Commissioning Agents, Inc. v. Long

187 F. Supp. 3d 980 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 17, 2016

The party moving for transfer has the burden to establish, by reference to particular circumstances, that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient than the transferor forum. … Without more, the Defendants have failed in their burden to establish that convenience clearly favors transfer to the Western District of Washington because of the existence of non-party witnesses out *989 side the reach

Lake County Trust Co., as Trustee for Lake County Trust 5434, James L. Gagan and Eugene H. Deutsch v. United Consumers Club, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 2015

Clearly, the premise of the trial court’s ruling is that the dismissal of the case in United I was something “other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.” … State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, the granting of United’s motion in the present case clearly acted as an adjudication on the merits against the Trust.

Matter of Haffner

25 B.R. 882 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 1982

Further, the evidence established that the debtors owed $4,800 in bin payments. … Clearly the enforcement of the “setoff” requirement is an attempt to collect a pre-petition debt.

Trinidad v. City of East Chicago

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants make a cursory argument that all defendants, except School City, are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no evidence that any … immunity must be denied.

St. Ex Rel. Sch. C. of South Bend v. Thompson, Aud.

211 Ind. 267 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1937

be a duly elected, qualified and acting mayor of a city in such county or a president of the board of trustees of an incorporated town in such county; one (1) shall be a duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting member … Its powers are clearly set forth in the above section.

S R v. T D

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2024

Initially, we note that, despite the DNA test showing that Putative Father is Child’s biological father, he qualifies as a “putative father” under Indiana Code section 31-9-2-100. … Rather, the applicable statutes very clearly establish that, unless and until Indiana Code section 31-19-5-1(b) applies, a putative father is required to register.

Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley Thoraco-Vascular Corp. v. Blatchford

900 N.E.2d 786 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

They were also elected and qualified to serve on MRSD's board of directors. The stock purchase agreement also contained a non-competition clause. … Long also stated that Blatchford is uniquely qualified to render the care he would need in such *798 an emergency. (Appellees App. pp. 227-83). e Dr.

Kevin Dowdy v. State of Indiana

83 N.E.3d 755 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2017

“We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we will not reweigh the evidence.” Id. … And the inquiry is not as forgiving as the one employed in the distinct context of deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a constitutional or statutory violation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Electric Co.

17 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1998

To proceed under the ADA, Smith must establish that he is an individual with a “disability” as defined by the Act. Smith’s burden of proving that he is a qualified individual with a disability is a “threshold matter.” … GE also points out that Smith’s per se argument is contrary to well-established law in this and other circuits. See Homeyer v.

Mark Adrian Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 14, 2019

We review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1007 … “[T]he repeated commission of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.