Case law

INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASS'N v. Martin

731 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2000

Thus, Martin sought a hardship exception to the transfer rule so that she would be allowed to play varsity sports. [3] However, IHSAA determined that under the IHSAA Eligibility Rules, Martin qualified for only limited eligibility … Clearly, there was evidence before the trial court that Martin suffered emotional and physical ailments.

School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co.

149 Ind. App. 416 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1971

two days later, on July 22, 1970, the Gary Urban League wrote the president of the School Board suggesting that the School Board give all due consideration *423 to bids on school construction work which are submitted by qualified … The fact of constructive fraud was sufficiently established, and constitutes valid foundation for the judgment below. Citizens Loan, etc., Co. v. Herron (1917), 186 Ind. 421 , 115 N. E. 941 .

In Re The Termination of The Parent-Child Relationship of: Ca.B. and C.B. (Minor Children), and T.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2018

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment. Id.

Pottlitzer v. Citizens Trust Co.

60 Ind. App. 45 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1915

The latter case clearly shows the reason for such ruling in the following language: “In our opinion the particular case where there is a special judge called in, with all its incidents from the beginning to the end, passes … property desiring to participate in the distribution of the funds under the control of the court through its receiver must intervene in the court of the receivership in the case in which the receiver has been appointed and establish

James Gillespie v. Anita Gillespie (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2017

Was the trial court’s finding that Husband had retained the parties’ joint tax refund clearly erroneous? 2. … Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)

Mance

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2026

To establish a claim of defamation under Indiana law, “a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a communication with defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, and (4) damages.” Neff v. … Kern] is the only person who should be immune if she did not act in malice . . . .” (ECF 20 at 3 (emphasis in original)). As Mr. Mance does not allege that Ms.

Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc.

273 Ind. 374 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 16, 1980

The limitations of the Act apply when the health care provider voluntarily qualifies to come under the provisions of the Act. Ind.Code § 16-9.5-2-1. … The rules implicitly approve a specific demand, but do not require one, and the pleading requirement of this statute clearly satisfies the express pleading requirements of both rules.

SPROLES v. BRIDGE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2025

The Court denied the motion as to Count II, holding that Sproles properly alleged an occupational liberty claim and that Defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the qualified immunity claim. Id. … Lastly, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Hiatt

65 Ind. App. 233 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1916

Appellant likewise extended to such persons an invitation, or gave them a direction, to make known to the operators of such an approaching car their presence and purpose by a signal established and understood by virtue of … If evidence is clearly immaterial, its erroneous admission is, as a general rule, held to be harmless. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathias (1875), 50 Ind. *247 65 ; Sparks v. Heritage (1873), 45 Ind. 66 ; Robinson v.

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.

Benson v. State

762 N.E.2d 748 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2002

At the time of the trial court's ruling, the defendant had not established a foundation showing that there had been no substantial changes in the trees, signage, or other possible obstructions to vision. … To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Willey v.

Whitley v. State

439 N.E.2d 715 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1982

The general rule in Indiana is that evidence of separate, independent and distinct crimes is inadmissible to establish an accused’s guilt of the crime charged. … However, the repeated commission of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.

Bake v. Smiley

84 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1882

and explicitly, and without any necessity for inference or surmise, what evidence was offered and excluded, and what facts it was intended to establish thereby. … So that, in any view of the case, we can not, under the long-established practice of this court, disturb the finding of the trial court on the weight of the evidence.

Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Inc. v. Bayh

133 F.R.D. 531 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 1990

The Supreme Court has established a two-tier approach for analyzing cases involving state statutes alleged to violate the Commerce Clause. … The establishment of insurmountable hurdles to the importation of solid waste sounds more like a commerce clause problem than a vagueness problem.

SPARGER-WITHERS v. TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2022

As a general matter, "a stay of discovery is warranted only when a party raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue such [as] standing, jurisdiction, or qualified immunity." Id. at *3. … immunity.

Carrie A. Krampen v. James J. Krampen

997 N.E.2d 73 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2013

Carrie’s 2011 tax filing clearly shows that she had negative income for tax purposes. … Typically, changes in parents’ income, emancipation, increase in educational expenses, and changes in custody of a child qualify as substantial and continuing circumstances that justify modifying a support order.

Carswell v. State

721 N.E.2d 1255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1999

Clearly, by enacting this statute, the legislature has recognized the value of restricting child molester’s access to children, *1260 thereby reducing the opportunity for convicted molesters to continue offending. … Thus, Griffin stands for the proposition that reasonableness for probationary searches may be established by statute rather than by warrant.

Felders v. Miller

776 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 4, 1991

The elaborate medical evidence in the record of this case clearly establishes beyond any dispute that this plaintiff does not now have or has never contacted during the time frame alleged in this case the communicable disease … Seiter, 111 S.Ct. at 2321 , clearly establishes deliberate indifference as a standard of proof.

Bryant v. State

802 N.E.2d 486 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2004

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances. Id. … Only when the trial court fails to find a significant mitigator that is clearly supported by the record is there a reasonable belief that it was overlooked. Kien v.

Bandido's, Inc. v. Journal-Gazette Co.

575 N.E.2d 324 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1991

To determine at this stage that the issues in dispute are (or are not) sufficient to prove the case clearly and convincingly would be to invade the province of the trier of fact. … Bandidos underscores the following facts and inferences flowing therefrom to establish a disputed issue suitable for trial.