Case law

Drogosz v. Newkirk

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2023

The district court “ruled that Reed was entitled to qualified immunity on Clark’s retaliation claim because it was not clearly established that a threat to file a grievance was protected speech.” Id. at 354. … Drogosz argues this case is not relevant because “the Clark court clearly states the Bridges case does not clearly establish if a threat to file a grievance is protected speech.” ECF 10 at ¶ 34.

Hensley v. Jasper Police Department

163 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2001

immunity. … Neither do we need to address whether Henley’s actions in serving the affidavits caused his termination, or whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Randy Corn v. Junior P. Corn, Bonnie D. Corn and Benjamin Corn

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2015

A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … To establish adverse possession of the lane, the Corns were required to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements of “(1) control, (2) intent, (3) notice, and (4) duration.” Wilfong v.

Jason McMickle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2019

We will reverse only if the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … “[T]he State need not establish a perfect chain of custody whereby any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.” Id.

T.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

921 N.E.2d 494 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2009

From the time of her release until March, 2007, Mother had not established suitable housing for her children, had not maintained stable employment, and had not complied with court orders regarding treatment for her drug problem … while the Addendum impermissi-bly interferes with the open adoption statutes' grants of authority to adoption courts and of consent rights to adoptive parents, the colloquy between the trial court, Mother, and her counsel clearly

Janice Brandom v. Coupled Products, LLC

975 N.E.2d 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2012

Courts have adopted these categories as a useful framework for analyzing whether a statement implicates an issue of public interest and thus qualifies for anti-SLAPP protection. … Nexus argues that this evidence establishes Heritage’s bad faith.

Joseph C. Lehman v. State of Indiana

55 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2016

Such activity certainly qualifies as “engag[ing] in the business of a practicing lawyer” as contemplated by Section 33-43-2-1. … Conclusion [23] We conclude that (1) the trial court did not clearly error in finding that Lehman failed to establish historical facts which support a rational inference of bias necessary to justify a change

Blythe v. Gibbons

141 Ind. 332 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1893

Blythe, was appointed in accordance with the prayer of their complaint, who was qualified, gave bond and filed an inventory. … The evidence discloses pretty clearly that such an order as that would have found no one ready to invest money and would have prevented the receiver from borrowing any more money.

Thayer v. Vaughan

801 N.E.2d 647 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2004

In our original opinion, this court determined that the Thayers failed to establish claims for sexual harassment or sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and that the sexual harassment claim was time barred, … In this case, the record demonstrates that the Tribune terminated Dale because it no longer viewed Dale as qualified to fulfill his obligations as Purchasing Manager.

Woodward v. Heritage Const. Co., Inc.

887 N.E.2d 994 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2008

A judgment is clearly erroneous if the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings or if those findings do not support the judgment. See id. … Woodward’s argument that Heritage’s work between June 9, 2005, and July 22, 2005, was so substandard as to not qualify for services rendered under Indiana Code Section 32-28-3 — 3(b)(2) is contrary to the court’s finding

Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Indiana Department of Correction (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2016

As noted above, Strowmatt was advised that his current crimes as well as his past crimes qualified as sex offenses. … The first step is to determine if the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings.

Conrad v. Hansen

171 Ind. 43 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1908

whether there was a conspiracy on the part of the petitioners, or some of them, to make fifteen of their number freeholders by procuring the conveyance to them of a certain lot' in Lakeville, in said township, and thereby qualifying … The rule that this court cannot weigh the evidence is clearly applicable here. American Varnish Co. v. Reed (1900), 154 Ind. 88, 91 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. State, ex rel. (1902), 158 Ind. 189, 195 ; Lee v.

Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction

883 N.E.2d 802 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2008

A statute is nullified on constitutional grounds only where that result is “clearly rational and necessary.” Id. (quoting Bd. of Comm’rs v. Kokomo City Plan Comm’n, 263 Ind. 282, 286 , 330 N.E.2d 92, 95 (1975)). … For example, simple theft or conversion of an inmate’s property would be immunized from court redress.

State ex rel. Cropper v. Murdock

86 Ind. 124 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

These rulings are assigned as error in this court. .To establish the wrongfulness and illegality of his imprisonment, appellant introduced in evidence a certified transcript of certain proceedings had in the Marion Criminal … If we must look to that act alone for authority, the appointment in this case was clearly irregular and illegal. Section 4 of the act of March 1st, 1855, 2 R.

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. United States

217 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 31, 1963

It is sufficient to note, without detailing the evidence, that plaintiff is likewise well qualified to handle the shipper’s transportation of uncrated pianos. … It should be noted that the record and findings made, after consideration of the exceptions, adequately establish the basis of the Commission’s action.

Cox v. State

475 N.E.2d 664 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1985

It is not to be used as a substitute for the duties clearly placed on an appellant by the other portions of Ind.R.App.P. 7.2. … It is incumbent on the appellant to clearly show the tendency of the photographs to improperly influence the jury. Akins v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 232 .

Vaughn v. Wernert

326 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 2018

The undisputed medical evidence establishes that at or near the time of the filing of this Complaint, Ms. … And Defendants clearly indicated at the hearing in this matter that resource allocation is not an issue in this case. Ms.

Adrienne Tyler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2015

Tyler has therefore established that the State restricted her expressive activity. See id. … We therefore conclude that Tyler’s expression therefore qualified as political expression.

Weatherbee v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

665 N.E.2d 945 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 1996

As an applicant for the school bus driver position, it was incumbent upon Weatherbee to submit to Southwestern a qualified bid which included verification that she was medically fit. … Weatherbee was not selected because her application failed to establish that her epileptic condition was under control and that, with medication, she was reliably asymptomatic.

Jeffrey Allen Rowe v. Bruce Lemon

976 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2012

Turning to Section 1983, that statute provides a civil remedy against any “person” who, acting under color of state law, subjects an American citizen to a deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … The DOC already had to provide such meals to persons requesting them for sincere religious beliefs pursuant to Judge Magnus-Stinson’s order.4 Although Rowe, obviously, is not Jewish, Judge Magnus-Stinson’s order quite clearly