Case law

Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers v. Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library

851 N.E.2d 1269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2006

As a result of the known problems with the Project and other construction projects that will be under construction in the Indianapolis metropolitan area, a number of qualified bidders may elect not to participate in a rebidding … Standard of Review The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss made under Trial Rule 41(B) is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Taflinger Farm. v. Uhl, 815 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).

Daniels v. State

453 N.E.2d 160 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1983

It is clearly established that a trial court's denial of a motion for change of venue in a case such as this is reviewed only for abuse of trial court discretion. Pallett v. … We therefore have considered all of the arguments raised in this appeal. , We note that other jurisdictions have found no satisfactory proof that death-qualified juries are unrepresentative of the community or are unduly

State v. Shumaker

200 Ind. 716 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1928

of the Legislative, to Congress; Article 2 of the Executive, to the President; and Article 3, of the Judiciary, to the United States Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish … And yet it was deemed advisable to expressly except it from the operation of the constitutional provision in question, which clearly indicates that it was never thought or intended that the term ‘offenses’ should be so limited

Andrew C. Stevens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … We review its determinations for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial

In Re Herr

79 B.R. 793 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1987

But the “without regard to any knowledge” clause in § 544(a) is not qualified in any way. … Lynch, 407 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ind.App.1980): Constructive notice is a legal inference from established facts.

Sherlock v. Bainbridge

41 Ind. 35 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1872

Where a stream, which is clearly not navigable, forms the boundaries of proprietors on each side of it, under the common law, each may claim to the middle of the stream. … The appellee’s wharf or wharf-boat is clearly entitled to no greater immunity, as against a person navigating the river, than if it had been a floating craft navigating the river, in which event, in case of collision, wilfulness

KYLE v. INDIANA I.D.O.C.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2025

immunity. … immunity.

Reuille v. Bowers

78 Ind. Dec. 200 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1980

Reuille presented no evidence to dispute the fact that the physical characteristics of Franke Road clearly qualify it as an intersection, except, he argues first that simply because it is a “T” intersection or side road, … A party with the burden of proof may establish a prima facie case and the jury may, nonetheless, find against him.

Barr v. St. John, The Town of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2024

12] on qualified immunity grounds.” … Barr argues that it would be premature to dismiss his claims on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Hays v. Harmon

809 N.E.2d 460 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2004

A circuit court has broad discretion in refusing to grant a motion to strike, and the court's decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. … We therefore note that the charitable trust at issue qualifies as a personal, express, testamentary charitable trust.

Richard K. Ray v. Ellyn E. Ray (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

These accounts shall be equally divided between the parties with [Richard’s] attorney preparing a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(“QDRO”)]. Appellant’s Appendix at 26. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

Department of Financial Institutions v. Union Bank & Trust Co.

212 Ind. 97 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 17, 1937

It appears from the record and briefs in this action that on or about the 8th day of March, 1929, Citizens State Bank of Huntington was appointed and qualified in the Circuit Court of Howard County, Indiana, in Probate Cause … There *110 after Powell brought a suit in the state court against the trustee to establish the validity of the mortgage.

King v. Burns

860 N.E.2d 879 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2007

When the Division initiated this appeal, we agreed to expedite consideration of the appeal and established a briefing schedule that required a reply brief to be filed no later than October 27, 2006. … Clearly, it was supposed to be filed with the Division no later than July 3, 2006.

Imhoff v. KMart Stores of Indiana, Inc.

149 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 2001

Under this approach, for a failure to promote claim, Imhoff must first establish a prima facie case, by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for a job for which the … With no personal or professional disrespect intended, it is clearly apparent that counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants in this case are prime candidates for deep reality therapy.

Jervis v. State

679 N.E.2d 875 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 12, 1997

Floyd’s statements to Molinet were clearly hearsay and therefore inadmissible unless within an exception to the hearsay rule. … Indeed, alternate jurors are presumed to be fair and equally qualified to the task. French v. State, 521 N.E.2d 346, 349 (Ind.1988).

Andy Mohr West, Inc. d/b/a Andy Mohr Toyota, Butler Motors, Inc. d/b/a Butler Toyota, and TW Toy, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Toyota v. Office of the Ind. Sec. of State, Auto Dealer Services Div.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2015

Thus, Section 9-32-13-24(e) clearly contemplates the relocation of a “proposed [NMV] dealer.” … I.C. § 9-32-2-20(2) speaks of “proposed” dealers and “relocated” dealers, clearly implying that the former is a planned/projected dealer while the latter is an established/existing dealer.

Ostrowski v. Everest Healthcare Indiana, Inc.

956 N.E.2d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2011

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case or if the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. at 1186 . … Accordingly, we cannot consider the deposition in making our determination.”), trans. denied (2003); In re D.L.M., 725 N.E.2d 981 , 983 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (noting "the well-established rule of appellate procedure that

Langbehn v. Town of Merrillville

413 N.E.2d 680 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1980

The Langbehns, being owners of land to be annexed, certainly qualified as remonstrators, but did not attempt to seek their statutory remedy. … This provision restricting standing is clearly a screening device to limit the number of annexation contests.

Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana Railroad v. Heaton

37 Ind. 448 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1871

S. 344, is relied upon by the appellant as establishing that under such contract the .appellant would only be liable for gross neglect, or want of ordinary care. … This is clearly shown by what is said, on page 385, on the subject.

Maurice McGraw Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2024

Evidence Rule 104 (“The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.”). 2. … McGraw has failed to establish a substantive double-jeopardy violation