Case law

Timothy W.C. Thompson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2020

shall not be Jun 23 2020, 10:55 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … Thompson argues that the two packages of adulterated methamphetamine do not qualify as pure methamphetamine because of the presence of the other substance.

State v. Swift

69 Ind. 505 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1880

The county answered, that, although more than two-thirds voted at the election, two-thirds of the qualified voters of the township did not vote, in favor of issuing the bonds. … Any other rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience, and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed.” County of Cass v. Johnston, 5 Otto, 360 ; St.

Blough v. Parry

144 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1896

the jury that if at the time the testator executed the will “he was of unsound mind, then it will be your duty in like manner *487 to find for the plaintiffs,” does not require them to so find, even though the evidence clearly … That holding is that such adjudication conclusively establishes his inability to manage his estate, but does not necessarily establish testamentary incapacity, yet" that it was prima facie evidence of such incapacity and

Delta Airlines v. Cook

816 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2004

The importance of § 18371(q) cannot be understated, for it can only be understood to qualify the scope of "services" removed from state regulation by § 18305(a)(1). … It did not intend to immunize the airlines from liability for personal injuries caused by their tortious conduct.

Convention Headquarters Hotels LLC v. Marion County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · May 24, 2024

To 10 The Indiana Constitution Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause states that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall … That said, the property record cards presented as evidence 24 contradict Convention HQ’s claim because they clearly show that numerous changes were made before construction was completed. (See Exs. P-1 to P-61; Exs.

Ashabraner v. Bowers

753 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2001

Ashabraner appealed, claiming that Bowers used a racially-based peremptory challenge, an expert witness was not qualified, and the trial court erred in regard to two instructions. … Because Batson applies to civil cases, the trial court was clearly wrong to conclude that "peremptory challenges can be utilized for any reason." (R. at 182.)

Kessen v. Graft

694 N.E.2d 317 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 1998

The legislature has, however, in the current version of the statutes authorizing tax sales and tax deeds, clearly taken the position that erroneously issued deeds are merely voidable. … While I would find that attacking the deed through T.R. 60 was proper, I would find that no abuse of discretion has been established in the determination that the motion was filed too late.

Bacher v. State

722 N.E.2d 799 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The impact on others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases but “the defendant’s actions must have had an impact on ... … While a failure to find mitigating circumstances clearly supported by the record may imply that the sentencing court improperly overlooked them, the court is obligated neither to credit mitigating circumstances in the same

J R v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2024

[17] Following the issuance of the Final Agency Action, a qualifying party may then file a petition for judicial review with the appropriate trial court pursuant to the Administrative Orders and Procedures … Code § 31-33-8-7 . . . to determine whether a report is substantiated is clearly distinct from the coercive intervention of DCS on behalf of the state under . . . CHINS proceedings”).

Thayer v. Vaughan

798 N.E.2d 249 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2003

"An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court." Id. … In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII, the Thayers had to show that (1) Cathy was a member of a protected class (ie., female); (2) she was qualified for the job in question or was

State Ex Rel. Booth v. Beck Jewelry Enterprises, Inc.

220 Ind. 276 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 14, 1942

Some of the subsections of section 12 are clearly within the title of the act. … Matters that are regulatory of such practice are clearly covered by the title. To forbid price advertising by an optometrist is regulation of his practice.

The Branham Corporation v. Newland Resources, LLC and John E. Bator

44 N.E.3d 1263 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

dismissal with prejudice in the event of nonpayment of the fees by the established deadline. … The other tort allegations, above and beyond the allegation of the ownership of the judgment against Newland, were not reduced to judgment such that they qualified as judgments owned by Branham that could

Eaton Corp. v. Appliance Valves Corp.

526 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 1981

The Restatement of Torts, Section 757, comment b (1939) clearly reflects the importances of this requirement. … The reasoning underlying this rule was clearly set forth in Continental Car-Na-Var Corp. v.

Bailey v. Manors Group

642 N.E.2d 249 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1994

Indeed, the Board does not designate, nor do we detect, a clearly manifested intent by the legislature to supplant common law theories of recovery. … To prevail on a quasi-contract claim, a plaintiff is usually required to establish that the defendant impliedly or expressly requested the benefits conferred. Biggerstaff v.

ESLICK v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

Alternatively, they maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate a clearly established right. … The Court need not address the Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. The Defendants have also raised a qualified immunity defense in their summary judgment motion (Dkt. 96 at 19–21).

Michael J. Gilliam II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2018

65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 28 2018, 10:59 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … Gilliam’s motion was filed after entry of a final judgment and, though titled otherwise, clearly constituted a motion to correct error. See Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct.

State ex rel. Wyman v. Halt

191 Ind. 271 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1921

official position of the appellees, and the qualifications of the relators' as petitioners for the highway in question, the complaint alleged facts which may be epitomized as follows: That a sufficient number of properly qualified … Even the judge of a circuit or superior court may be •compelled by mandamus to proceed in a cause by performing the duties imposed by law whenever those duties are clearly defined and the acts to be done are specifically

Department of Insurance v. Marion Superior Court

236 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1956

A number of such applicants had taken and passed the written examination prescribed by law and had been notified by the proper authorities that they had successful^ qualified for licenses to write automobile insurance. … The rights which the Company is here endeavoring to protect are, under the circumstances in this case, clearly the basis for equitable relief and the Marion Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this particular case, and it did

CLAY v. THORUP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 6, 2025

Code § 34-11-2-4 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims for adult claimants in Indiana). … Because the statute of limitations bars the individual capacity claims, the Court need not decide which individual capacity claims, if any, are futile due to the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.

Garner v. McDermott

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2021

Garner’s financial information establishes that he is qualified to file without payment of the fee, but his complaint does not pass muster when subjected to the associated review of its merits. … (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”