Case law

LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC v. HUSTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 2024

Each of the plaintiff-subsidiaries are qualified to bid in MISO except Central Transmission, which is qualified in PJM. Id. at 5. … Constitution grants sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense that IURC must prove. See On-Site Screening, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2012).

Hicks v. State

213 Ind. 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1937

He qualified as an expert to testify as to the effect of 20. injuries sustained by Miller and the jury had the right to decide whether the evidence tended to prove the facts contained in the question. … And instruction No. 40 clearly shows to our mind that our interpretation of instruction No. 39 is correct.

State of Indiana v. Kenneth R. Trisler (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2016

[Trisler] was defined by this law as a “serious sex offender” by reason of his conviction for a qualifying sex offense in February 2010. … We are aided by the principle that every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until that presumption is clearly overcome by a contrary showing. State v.

Indiana University Medical Center, Riley Hospital for Children v. Logan

728 N.E.2d 855 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 2000

The twelve exhibits consisted of uncertified documents and unsworn statements.[2] Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence. Kronmiller v. … [3] It has been held that expert opinion is usually required to establish a causal connection between the acts or omissions of the physician and the injury to the patient. Bowman v.

Tobin v. Ruman

819 N.E.2d 78 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2004

("[alt best, such evidence establishes that Miller wrongfully terminated the contract"). … The agreement clearly and unambiguously requires that upon a request from Tobin, who was an associate, Ruman was required to buy back Tobin's share of stock plus interest. Tobin paid $15,000 for his share of stock.

Ross v. State

835 N.E.2d 1090 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2005

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law. State v. … The court also determined that the "facts and cireumstances of this offense" qualified as an aggravator. Tr. pp. 54-56.

Jolena K. Plaut, Known Heir and Personal Representative of the Estate of Beulah Jane Enderle, a/k/a Beulah Jane Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2016

genuine issue of material fact that Wells Fargo was the holder of the Note entitled to enforce the loan documents. 13 Notwithstanding Plaut’s suggestions to the contrary, the Mortgage and Note were clearly … Once the mortgagee establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the mortgagor to show that the note has been paid in full or to establish any other defenses to the foreclosure. Id.

T.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2018

2018, 5:51 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s action is “clearly erroneous” and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Sons v. City of Crown Point

691 N.E.2d 1237 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1998

The court has considerable latitude in devising procedures to ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction, and it is well established that in doing so it may consider not only the complaint and motion but any affidavits … Langbehn is clearly distinguishable and does not support the remonstrators’ argument. First, unlike the property owners in Langbehn , the remonstrators in the present ease did not file an action for declaratory relief.

Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville

907 N.E.2d 559 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2009

The "Sex Offender" shall provide proof that he or she has a [qualify ing family member]. This proof shall include their age, sex and relationship to the "Sex Offender". … Thus, this first factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Ordinance as punitive when applied to Dowdell. 6 2.

Wallace v. Indiana Insurance

428 N.E.2d 1361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1981

The burden is on the movant for summary judgment to establish that no material facts are in genuine issue. … Clearly, Insurer did not waive its policy limitations regarding proof of loss and the time for bringing suits, and thus we hold. Issue III.

Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

653 N.E.2d 539 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 10, 1995

Such a use is directly analogous to the 34 enumerated uses set forth in subsection (b) of Rule 45 IAC. 13-4-7 and qualifies Roehl for the “exemption” under 45 IAC. 13-4-7(d). … THE COMMERCE CLAUSE In 1977, the United States Supreme Court expressly rejected the view that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation. See Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v.

Behavioral Health and Human Services Licensing Board, Kimble L. Richardson, George Brenner, Andrew Harner, Geneva Osawe, Rex Stockton, Carla Gaff-Clark, and The State of Indiana v. Elaine Williams

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2014

See Tr. p. 59 (“As I read the record and from my finding[s] it’s obvious I mean I, I thought there was evidence from which boundaries violations could clearly be established. … The record herein established that Patient A suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, and Schizophrenia.

Pender v. United States

866 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 1994

Therefore, the statement would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule. Because both *1135 the first and second statements constitute admissible evidence, they will be considered. … In order to prevail, Consolidated must demonstrate that the “public or livery conveyance” exclusion clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage under the present facts. Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Shelby's Landing-II, Inc., Richard Deckard, Jr., Marilyn Deckard, and Deckard Realty & Development Co. v. PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Limited Partnership

65 N.E.3d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2016

The trial court’s findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. … However, the Defendants raised the same objection at trial, and the trial court admitted the affidavits on the basis that they qualified as certified business records, which are an exception to the prohibition

Enviroplan, Inc. v. Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

900 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 19, 1995

Whatever sufficiency the first visit may have lacked, we believe the second visit in December 1993 clearly establishes minimum contacts. … Accordingly, Defendant has not borne its burden of establishing that the Western District of Oklahoma would be clearly more convenient. VI.

ATES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 2025

Ates further argues that he does not need a medical expert to establish causation because his COVID-19 positive test established that he had contracted COVID-19. … Wurcel is not qualified to offer such opinion. Specifically, "Dr.

Prevo v. City of Hammond

186 Ind. 612 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1917

This section provides that no such improvement shall be made unless authorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the municipality to be taken in accordance with the terms of the statute. … As to this appellants are clearly in error.

Cutter v. Herbst

945 N.E.2d 240 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2011

Mirro] is qualified to provide this court with expert testimony regarding [Herbst’s] probable prognosis at the time of his hospitalization on March 6, 2002. 7. The expert evidence of Dr. … Mirro establishes that [Herbst] had a less than 20% chance of surviving discharge from hospital. Dr.

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

637 N.E.2d 1306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1994

To qualify for this assistance, a state must devise a scheme for reimbursing health care providers and have that plan approved by the Secretary of Health & Human Services. … Our review of the record convinces us that this factual determination is not clearly erroneous.