Case law

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.

Stinnett v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

101 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 18, 2000

Excusing compliance with policy provisions that require physician treatment during a claimed disability period is justified only when the existence of the disability is clearly established and there is a rational basis for … Stinnett suffered a qualifying disability under the terms of those policies during the time period in question.

Standard Register Co. v. Cleaver

30 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 1998

by operation of Ohio law (the law that governed the merger), became vested with: all assets and property of every description and every interest in the assets and property, wherever located, and the rights, privileges, immunities … Therefore, these matters do not appear to qualify as trade secrets.

Couch v. Schweiker

555 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 1982

Clearly if there was such a presumption following a proper termination of benefits, it would render the termination invalid. … Therefore, that same medical evidence is clearly insufficient to establish disability under the stricter standard applicable to disabled wid *657 ow’s benefits.

Kyle James Fravel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2019

65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 29 2019, 7:39 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Flota was granted use immunity to testify against Fravel, but he refused to testify for fear of retaliation.

United States Ex Rel. Durcholz v. FKW Inc.

997 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1998

The record clearly establishes that the relevant government officials knew and approved of the fact that the project would be performed by dredging and that its price would be documented with conventional line items. … Durcholz’s bid clearly was for dredging or conventional excavation, whichever FKW preferred.

Jackson v. Brinker

147 F.R.D. 189 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 1993

The Indiana Department of Correction (“Department”), originally named as a defendant, was granted judgment on the pleadings on the ground of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. (Entry and Order of October 20, 1992). … Because the Health Records Act appears in this case to constitute a state statute specifically requiring access to the plaintiff’s medical records, it qualifies as an exception to § 5-14-3-4’s protections.

Mueller v. State

837 N.E.2d 198 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2005

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … Prosecutors have clearly recognized and very broad discretion in the performance of their duties and, more specifically, in making decisions as to which persons arrested for crimes they will actually charge and prosecute

Bowen v. Sonnenburg

78 Ind. Dec. 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1980

It therefore clearly follows that whether Alban L. … Smith is clearly not a member of the proposed class of patient -workers, he was otherwise ineligible to participate as a party plaintiff in the cause. TR. 23(A). IV.

SHIVELY v. PLATT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2025

Shively was not subject to an objectively serious condition, they were not deliberately indifferent to the risk of asbestos exposure, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Mr. Shively has not responded. … immunity.

Stone v. Manship

505 N.E.2d 155 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1987

Stone argues this section does not apply to him because "[ujnder the arrangement established by the appellee, the appellant was not an employee or other person under the terms of IC 16-6-8-4(b)(8) above. … Thus, the fact Manship was Stone's employee cannot support Stone's argument he does not qualify under this section.

Stultz v. State ex rel. Steele

65 Ind. 492 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

It will be observed, however, that it was not alleged in the information, that the appellants were not the lawfully elected and qualified mayor, eouncilmen, clerk, treasurer and marshal of a city, say of the City of Huntington … Rut we are clearly of the opinion, that the legality of the proceedings, whereby the territory in question was taken within, or annexed to, the City of Huntington, can not be tried and determined, under the provisions of

Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana

994 N.E.2d 1166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2013

Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until that presumption is clearly overcome by a contrary showing. Wallace, 905 N.E.2d at 378. … In applying the test, the court first considers whether the legislature meant to establish civil proceedings. Harris, 949 N.E.2d at 810.

Blume v. State

154 Ind. 343 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1900

Counsel say that this person had not such opportunities for observing the appellant as were necessary to qualify him to give an opinion upon the subject of his mental condition. … The jury were repeatedly told in other general instructions given by the court that they could not convict the defendant unless his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pike v. Caldera

188 F.R.D. 519 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 1999

Strode was, in an objective sense, highly qualified for the position. … Strode appeared qualified for the job to a selecting official. Evidence that showed a selecting official would not think Ms. Strode was qualified for the job would be responsive.

Michael L. Harris v. State of Indiana, Elkhart County Sheriff's Dept.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2013

FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Jan 23 2013, 8:49 am establishing … As a result of the inherent immunity rooted in the Supremacy Clause, federal officers are immune “for actions reasonable and necessary in the discharge of their federal responsibilities.” Wyoming v.

Heifner v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2020

Ex. 1, pp. 2-3, 7-12, 17-18). 14 establish claim). … Clearly, Heifner failed to assert any claim related to the 2015 surgery and the United States was without knowledge of the same.

Vickery v. State

932 N.E.2d 678 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

Effective July 1, 2006, our legislature amended the Act to require lifetime registration for a defendant whose offense qualifies him as an SVP. See Ind.Code § 11-8-8-19. … In applying the test, the court first considers whether the legislature intended the statute to establish civil proceedings or impose punishment. Id.

Coates v. State

534 N.E.2d 1087 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1989

Witnesses in criminal actions can qualify for payment of certain expenses. See Ind.Code § 33-19-1-5 (1987). … The sentences imposed here do not qualify for revision by this Court. 15.

Inman v. Inman

898 N.E.2d 1281 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2009

Wife had submitted an appraisal establishing the value of F-5 as $340,000.00; Husband had proposed how to divide $340,000 in sale proceeds 4 ; and the evidence had established Husband’s “superior position to know and testify … The evidence before the trial court established Husband’s superior economic position and financial knowledge.