Case law

Cassidy v. Indiana State Board of Registration & Examination in Optometry

244 Ind. 137 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1963

“That by the use of signs and a newspaper advertisement in the November 31, 1960 issue of the Chesterton Tribune and the October 31, 1960 issue of the Portage News, Plaintiff held himself out as qualified for the practice … But can it be said that a lawyer, whose office space adjoins the offices of a bank or loan association which advertises its business, with most of his busi *149 ness being related to that establishment, is thereby guilty

Bollman v. Indianapolis Machinery Co.

150 Ind. App. 465 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1971

Profit Sharing Plan so as to qualify as a Member of the Indianapolis Machinery Co., Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust? “2. Were the defendants Louis J. Borinstein and Edwin E. … Appellees concede that if “regular full-time salaried employee” means one who works eight hours a day, five days a week, defendant Borinstein does not qualify.

Burgess v. E.L.C. Electric, Inc.

825 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2005

The claims clearly have connection with and refer to the ERISA plan. The essence of the claims is a failure to supply benefits under the plan.... Just as in Ingersoll-Rand [Co. v. … However, that the State has regulated this area does not, of itself, immunize its efforts from the effects of ERISA preemption. See id.

Medical Assurance of Indiana v. McCarty

808 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2004

Additionally, as established by our decision in Patel, Barker is entitled to recover $1.5 million for these injuries, or one $750,000 maximum statutory recovery for each injury. … The legislature could have chosen to require a health care provider to pay up to $100,000.00 for each "injury or death of a patient" resulting from an occurrence of malpractice, but it clearly did not do so.

Lovko v. Lovko

179 Ind. App. 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1978

Lovko as an expert witness, the trial court possesses wide discretion in determining if a witness is qualified to testify as an expert, Snow v. … This case is clearly distinguishable from Husband’s cited case of Indiana Union Traction Company v.

Chandler v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 19, 2023

Third, the defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly unconstitutional, as they used force in good faith to restore order. Id. at 12-14. … Chandler’s version of events and conclude the defendants clearly violated his Eighth Amendment rights by slamming him into a wall and preventing his breathing until he blacked out.

Madison County Assessor v. Kohl's Indiana LP

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 22, 2025

These requirements, the Board concludes, are satisfied by “[a]n appraisal from a qualified appraiser” that is USPAP- compliant unless the appraisal is “shown to be inconsistent with the evidence or the requirements of … The Board’s two-prong test for establishing a prima facie case results in the improper establishment of a per-se rule and is thus overly narrow. Appraisals, like books, cannot be judged by their covers.

Shell

478 B.R. 889 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2012

Under § 522(b)(1), the debtor may utilize either the exemptions established by federal law, or the exemptions established by the particular state in which the debtor is domiciled, as determined under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (b)(3 … It follows that the Debtor in this case does not qualify to claim the Illinois exemptions as she no longer resides in Illinois.

FRANKE v. GEICO CAUSALITY COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2022

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) ("Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages."). … All of Judge Felix's alleged conduct was clearly within the scope of judicial actions therefore he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity on the federal claims. As recognized by Mr.

Potts v. Williams

746 N.E.2d 1000 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2001

Potts, MD exercised reasonable care and skill in the treatment of a patient, you must consider only the expert testimony of *1005 qualified health care providers who are members of David R. … In order for a plaintiff to carry his burden of proof, he must present evidence of probative value based on facts, or inferences to be drawn from the facts, establishing both that the wrongful act was a cause in fact of the

State v. Poindexter

517 N.E.2d 88 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1987

Parties asserting that a judgment is contrary to law must establish that the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trier of fact reached the opposite conclusion. … IC 86-5-3-2 and IC 5-10-6-1 clearly require the compensation of the clerk-treasurer's office to be established by local ordinance.

Indiana Department of Highways v. Dixon

541 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1989

Applicability of the AAA The Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA) (repealed effective July 1, 1987) established “a uniform method of administrative adjudication by all agencies of the state of Indiana ... … To the contrary, the petition only omitted one of the grounds for review under subsection 14(a): that the agency action was “[c]on-trary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.”

Cameron v. Parish

155 Ind. 329 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1900

McAdams, the executor therein named, duly qualified as such, and continued to administer his trust until he was regularly discharged as such executor on the 13th day of. March, 1893. … The doctrine of election, as between inconsistent rights and its application to wills, has long been established and is firmly settled by the authorities.

O'Connor v. O'Connor

253 Ind. 295 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1969

Remarriage is without doubt an acceptance of the benefits which clearly falls within the rule. … Clearly, this is not to say that an award must be made to the successful wife and this court has so held: “. . .

Lopez v. Olsen

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 23, 2025

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).

Phelps v. State

969 N.E.2d 1009 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

The minister agreed that Phelps did not qualify for his program. … Phelps did not establish a nexus between his mental health issues and the shooting of Jackson.

Jones v. State

957 N.E.2d 1033 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2011

We will reverse only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Further, the defendant must establish that he was prejudiced because of the trial court’s denial of his motion. Id. at 387 .

Sims v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

782 N.E.2d 345 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2003

This Court should "nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary." Bd. of Comm'rs of the County of Howard v. … By enacting the Worker's Compensation Act, the General Assembly has changed the common law by establishing a statutory scheme that approaches strict liability: if the accidental injury arises out of and in the course of employment

Lafferty v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Services

600 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1992

In addition, Lafferty claims that IDETS' role in helping him find employment with ABA also provides the necessary "good cause" to qualify for benefits. … The "modifi-eation'" provision in (c) clearly provides an exception to the general disqualification provision in (a).

Troy Stevenson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2016

charged Stevenson with Count I, Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Count II, Class D felony possession of cocaine.4 On February 28, 2014, the State then added an allegation that Stevenson qualified … It is a well-established principle that a single aggravator is sufficient to support an enhanced sentence. Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).