Case law

In re: Indiana State Fair Litigation, Mid-America Sound Corporation v. Indiana State Fair Commission, Jill Polet

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2016

Though none of the indemnity language in this invoice expressly extends to losses prior to the invoice date, Mid-America argues that its course of dealing with the Commission established such an agreement—or at least raises … In view of that conclusion, we express no opinion on whether the Commission is a govern- mental entity with immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Ind.

Shindler v. State

166 Ind. App. 258 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1975

Clearly, we are not here concerned with a situation where Milhous never had possession of the money. … Newspapers, television and radio stations — Press associations — Employees and representatives — Immunity.

Gaddie v. Manlief

864 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2007

We will conclude that a trial court abused its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, or against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Also, evidence is not cumulative when the other evidence tending to prove the same facts is clearly not persuasive and therefore requires further support.

Murphy Breeding Laboratory, Inc. v. West Central Conservancy District

828 N.E.2d 923 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2005

Here, in support of its motion, WCCD clearly submitted matters and evidence outside the pleadings. … WCCD asserts that Charles Murphy's testimony establishes that damages to Tract 5 were part of the Condemnation Action.

Walker v. Hill

111 Ind. 223 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1887

It is true, perhaps, that the adjudication did not establish Rowley’s title; but it did establish conclusively that John Walker and the appellants, in so far as they claimed under John, had no such title to the real estate … Torbit was appointed and qualified as guardian of John and Thomas T. Walker, and, on the same day, Edward M. Sharp was appointed and qualified as guardian of Eleanor Baxter, then Walker.

Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius

914 F. Supp. 2d 943 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 2012

At this preliminary stage, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have a reasonable likelihood of establishing that the mandate substantially burdens their practice of religion. … Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”).

Lazarus Department Store v. Sutherlin

544 N.E.2d 513 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1989

Onee more, the qualifying phrase "probably" was improperly inserted before the two operative elements necessary to establish probable cause. … Thus, the use of a qualifying term in both Instructions No. 3 and 4 was a misstatement of the law or at the very least, would tend to mislead and confuse the jury.

Stout v. Hendricks

228 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 1964

There was a bill introduced which clearly ignored the mandate of Article 4, Sections 4 and 5, because it sought to enumerate and apportion on the basis of both male and female inhabitants. The bill failed. … Privileges equal. — The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. § 25.

Collins Coal Co. v. Hadley

38 Ind. App. 637 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1905

Counsel for appellee seek to avoid the rule established by the eases cited, upon the ground that §285, supra, repeals §7473, supra, “as to the person who sháll bring the action.”. … Without entering into a discussion of the question thus raised, we are clearly of the opinion that the position assumed by counsel is not tenable.

Laney v. State

868 N.E.2d 561 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

Laney contends it is unclear what the State meant when it alleged that she “presented” K.F. to Plummer, as that word has no established legal meaning. … , for purposes of the limitation on consecutive sentencing for a single episode of criminal conduct found in Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-1, the defendant’s convictions for murder and aggravated battery as an accomplice qualified

Jacob Weinberg News Agency, Inc. v. City of Marion

163 Ind. App. 181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1975

This attribute of his merchandise entitles his business to the qualified protection of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States. Bantam Books, Inc. v. … Affirmative relief shall be allowed under such remedy when the right thereto is established.

Davis v. Carrington

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2024

It is well established that the Entireties Exemption in Indiana prevents a judgment against one spouse from affixing as a lien to property held as tenants by entirety. … While Warsco is not squarely on point, and I think I would have to hesitate as qualifying it as controlling authority issued after Judge Brady’s opinion, it does give additional credence to my resounding feeling that Judge

Reynolds/Herr v. State

582 N.E.2d 833 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1991

Whether a sufficient chain of custody was established to admit the cocaine into evidence. III. … The corpus delicti may be established, by circumstantial evidence. Id.

LB Ex Rel. Benjamin v. GREATER CLARK CTY. SCHOOLS

458 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2006

s parents of the defendants' position that "[b]y operation of law, the BSEA's Decision establishes that Summit Academy is no longer [L.B.' … The IDEA clearly provides that state or local educational agencies can agree to a child's changed current placement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (j), and Burlington and other cases establish that decisions resulting from the administrative

Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler

505 N.E.2d 459 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1987

In Judge Ratliff's vigorous dissent, he correctly noted the proposed use met the definition of a single-family residence as clearly established by decisions from our sister states. … Chapter 21 clearly establishes that the public policy of this state is to promote the development and maintenance of quality programs and facilities for the care and treatment of the mentally and developmentally handicapped

State v. Foy

862 N.E.2d 1219 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2007

Hornick, 540 N.E.2d 1256 (suppression of evidence clearly erroneous because officers’ observations established probable cause). … State, 490 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind.1986) (witness qualified as trace evidence expert for purpose of comparing enlarged photo of defendant’s shoe with wound on victim’s head); Forrester v.

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Wills

717 N.E.2d 151 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1999

A corporation may not employ qualified practitioners to carry on the business of practicing for it. … The North Carolina statute simply memorialized a doctrine that was already well-established under the law.

Gerald Clemons v. State of Indiana

996 N.E.2d 1282 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2013

In response, he heard a muffled female voice very clearly say, “help me, please help me.” Id. … The State further argues that Clemons failed to establish the elements of a defense of necessity as set forth in Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct.

Kathryne Tillett v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2026

The allegations originated with E.W., who was interviewed first by a qualified forensic interviewer with no prior knowledge of the allegations of abuse at issue. … Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Tillett’s mental health was clearly an issue from the outset of her prosecution.

John Roberts Manufacturing Co. v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac

152 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 1957

The determinative facts established by the undisputed evidence are that the plaintiff is a Delaware Corporation, with its factory and principal office in Norman, Oklahoma, and the defendant is an Indiana corporation, having … in bas-relief thereon, and has sold it in competition with the defendant to all students of Notre Dame in violation of the rule of the defendant of restricting sales to juniors, seniors and alumni only, and the evidence clearly