Case law

Phenix Insurance v. Tomlinson

9 L.R.A. 317 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1890

The averment of performance is, however, qualified by specific allegations, which read thus : “ And the plaintiff admits it to be true that when said premium note became due he did not pay the same. … It is a principle of wide sweep that forfeitures are not favored, and within the spirit of this principle such cases as this clearly fall.

Miller v. United States

669 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 1987

I request complete immunity per U.S.C. 18 6002 & 6004. Before waiving any Constitutional or natural rights. Including 4th & 5th Amendment rights. Please Help! … As discussed below, because Miller’s constitutional objections are clearly spurious, his 1984 tax return is frivolous within the meaning of section 6702 because it “is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned

Parrill v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

23 Ind. App. 638 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1900

The evidence showed that the goods were lost by fire, and clearly indicated that they were so lost without any negligence on the part of the carrier. … App. 218 , it was said to be the established rule in this State that where the action is upon an implied contract or for an alleged breach of the carrier’s common law duty, and it is found on the trial that the goods were

Jeffrey Sparks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2020

If you cannot afford an attorney, the Court may appoint one for you, if you qualify as being truly indigent. … To the contrary, Sparks spoke clearly and intelligently with the trial court.

Dulin v. State

169 Ind. App. 211 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 1976

As a reading of the above eases indicates, the courts have seized upon language in Morrissey that clearly distinguishes formal criminal proceedings and probation revocation hearings. … This determination is not a finding of guilt— guilt has already been established.

Conter, Treasurer v. State Ex Rel. Berezner

211 Ind. 659 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1937

Conter was the duly elected, qualified and acting treasurer of Lake County, Indiana, and_ was ex-officio treasurer of the City of Gary, Indiana, at the time the action herein was commenced. … Appellant submits that in the light of the case cited above, Section 2, Chapter 317, Acts of 1935 is clearly unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of contracts.”

LEE ALAN BRYANT HEALTH CARE v. Hamilton

788 N.E.2d 495 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2003

Bryant Health Care is a qualified provider of residential care to RCAP recipients. … Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, these statutes do not obligate DDARS to pay for residential care for all qualified individuals.

Smith v. Yang

829 N.E.2d 624 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2005

The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id. … Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides that: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert

Hayes v. Chapman

894 N.E.2d 1047 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2008

To determine that a finding or conclusion is clearly erroneous, our review of the evidence must leave us with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … Finally, we note that even if Robert’s action qualified as an uncured or incurable deceptive act, Indiana Code section 24 — 5—0.5—5(b) explicitly states that “[a]ny action brought under this chapter may not be brought more

Fazekas v. Crain Consumer Group Div. of Crain Communications, Inc.

583 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 1984

It can now be stated that by virtue of these guarantees, grounded primarily in the first amendment, a qualified privilege exists for all media expression. … The “content, effect and significance” of allegedly illegal conduct on the part of a two-time national champion race driver is clearly a matter of general interest to the Showroom Stock participants and fans who were readers

Collins v. Covenant Mutual Insurance Co.

604 N.E.2d 1190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1992

A special judge appeared and was qualified. … "Clearly the policy of the law is to keep the issue of insurance out of personal injury litigation.

Smith v. Sullivan

799 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 1992

Smith must be “disabled” in order to qualify for the benefits he requests. … Smith would be restricted to sedentary work, of which there are approximately 5,000 jobs in the regional economy for which he would be qualified and capable of performing (R. 63). Mr.

In the Matter of A.C. and P.C., Children in Need of Services, K.C. and R.C. (Parents) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2020

FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 05 2020, 8:25 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … That there is a lack of immunizations for [Child P.C.]. 8. Father has a sporadic work history. 9. Mother has a sporadic work history. 10.

Garman v. United States Postal Service

509 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 1981

Plaintiff has been given ninety (90) days from February 25, 1981 in which to qualify on the “scheme.” How long it takes plaintiff to pass depends on how fast plaintiff can learn the scheme. … The infringement of plaintiff’s alleged religious First Amendment rights is clearly justified by the compelling interests of the Postal Service and the public.

Morris v. State

936 N.E.2d 354 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2010

And when faced with an ambiguous statute, other well-established rules of statutory construction are applicable. … As Morris notes, in 2001, "the legislature modified a number of other statutes that opened up community corrections eligibility to offenders that had not previously qualified." (Appellant's Br. at 7.)

Ronco v. State

840 N.E.2d 368 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2006

The trial court met with the attorneys and told them about the question and stated to them that the answer to the question was "clearly an or." … A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances before it. Id.

Braden Corp. v. Citizens National Bank of Evansville

661 N.E.2d 838 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1996

However, since the underlying facts are undisputed and because the defendants do not clearly state what the conflicting inferences are that can be drawn from the undisputed facts, resolution of this case depends only upon … However, the defendants fail to cite any authority, and we find none, establishing that a bank’s failure to debit an account after an initial.dishonor of a check prevents it from taking the check as a holder in due course

Mathis Franklin, Jr. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and M&M Mortgage, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2018

First, the unredacted provisions of the Service Agreement clearly indicate that M&M was an independent contractor, and Franklin can offer only speculation that any of the redacted portions provide … [16] Finally, Franklin argues that illegal acts allegedly performed by Advanced, namely vandalism and the violation of the automatic stay provisions of bankruptcy law, qualify for the fifth exception

Barry Atwell v. City of Indianapolis (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2019

as a legally established non-conforming use … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or if the trial court misinterprets the law.

Methodist Hosp. v. IND. FAMILY & SOCIAL SERVICES

860 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 1994

To qualify for federal funds, a state must submit a plan for medical assistance to the Secretary of HHS which complies with the requirements outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a). … Clearly, Medicaid recipients are the intended beneficiaries of this section, and the section does not provide a right enforceable to Medicaid providers, such as Plaintiffs in this action.