Case law

Thomas L. Arflack v. Town of Chandler, Indiana Chandler Town Council and Town of Chandler Advisory Plan Commission

27 N.E.3d 297 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2015

Clearly this language does not contemplate the immediate entry of judgment upon the sustaining of such a motion. … If he in fact does not -wish to plead over—as clearly appears to be the case here—then no harm has occurred from the error.

Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Howarth

73 Ind. App. 454 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1919

It claims that this statement is too broad, and should have been qualified by the rule of law that a railroad company, having given notice of its intention to use a crossing, has priority, even over a traveler who has exercised … These facts establish one of the alleged acts of negligence, and show that it was the proximate cause of appellee’s injuries.

HARVEY v. ARAMARK CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2022

Harvey has not established a constitutional violation, the Court need not address the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. See Locke v. … Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2015) (recognizing first prong of qualified immunity analysis requires determination of whether defendant violated a constitutional right). Additionally, Mr.

Jackson v. Service Engineering, Inc.

96 F. Supp. 2d 873 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 17, 2000

Standard for Summary Judgment The standard for summary judgment is well established. … The federal statute most clearly tailored to address the situation alleged by Jackson is the ERISA retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 , discussed above.

Densmore v. City of Knox

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 2023

Ind. 2013) (negligent retention, hiring, supervision, and training barred by discretionary function immunity). … Only the claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are specifically exempted from qualified immunity in Indiana. See Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(8).

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Davis

860 N.E.2d 915 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2007

This was clearly a scrivener’s error, since no transcript had been requested. … [The Insurers] needing to establish both prongs of res ipsa loquitur and the Court finding that the second prong has not been established, the Court finds such issue to be dispositive and, accordingly, the Court does not

WILLIAMSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 2025

Instead, to receive the requested relief, the moving party “must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” … State of Ind., 129 F.3d 937, 942 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is to spare judges from shrinking from doing their duty out of fear of being sued that the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity was devised.").

Joseph A. Taylor v. Sgt. Rinehart

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.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 … In our previous opinion, we clearly held that the trial court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Taylor’s complaint, so dismissal was appropriate.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 20 2017, 8:53 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Manley qualifies as a violent criminal under the statute because he was convicted of child molesting. I.C. § 35-38-1-17(d)(10) (“violent criminal” means a person convicted of child molesting).

MORGAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2026

Defendants argue that this allegation, even if true, fails to establish gross negligence, which requires more than ordinary negligence. (Dkt. 43 at 3). … This is the case except when the plaintiff alleges that the actions of the employee are "(1) criminal; (2) clearly outside the scope of the employee's employment; (3) malicious; (4) willful and wanton; or (5) calculated

Jones

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 7, 2026

Coffey went to trial, then the judge set aside the verdict on qualified immunity grounds, the Court of Appeals reversed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari remanding the case for reconsideration, and then the Seventh Circuit … held the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for liability.

Wayde Coleman v. Marion County Treasurer and Marion County Auditor (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2018

The County argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed facts negated at least one element of Coleman’s claims and because it had affirmative defenses, including immunity under … “[B]oth our appellate rules as well as applicable case law clearly indicate that when appealing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must file with the appellate court those

Toney v. Wendling

138 Ind. 228 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 29, 1894

Fickle, Esq., an attorney at law of the Cass Circuit Court, as their guardian ad litem,, who accepted the appointment and qualified according to law. … Such allegations would clearly make a case in which the alienee, in violation of his trust, purchased land with money not his own.

M.L.R. v. Harrison County Welfare Dept.

567 N.E.2d 872 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1991

We may not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. In the Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d at 284 . … In part, she contests the evidence establishing that her boyfriend was the person named in the judgment of conviction.

Hall v. Superintendent

834 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 29, 2011

whether a legal principle had been clearly established”); Holland v. … Alternatively, Hall argues that the state court ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

Steinrock Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. McCulloch

965 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2012

Substantial evidence was presented at trial establishing that the contractor’s work was deficient in a number of respects. … The inquiry of whether Steinrock is still open made by McCulloch to Tara Hunter does not qualify as a defamatory statement. 24.

Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Schuler

909 N.E.2d 1040 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2009

When a statement contains within it another statement, each layer of hearsay must qualify under an exception to the hearsay rule before the evidence at issue is admissible. Barger v. … As such, the trial court's determination that Irmscher and Pella breached the implied warranty of merchantability is not clearly erroneous.

McEntire v. Indiana National Bank

471 N.E.2d 1216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1984

The terms of this particular guaranty very clearly contemplate the equipment lease agreement at issue herein and must have been so intended. … This state of affairs qualifies a guarantor for the status of "debtor" within the terms of I.C. 26-1-9-105(1)(d).

In Re Estate of Grotrian

76 Ind. Dec. 331 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1980

As clearly established by the cases where the transferor retains a life estate in the property, the only interest succeeded to by the transferee upon the transferor's death is the present possessory interest. … These combined facts establish that Wilbur's "Class" is not relevant to this issue. To determine this tax liability under Class A rates and exemptions is clearly in violation of legislative intent.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.N., Minor Child and his Father, M.D.N. v. Indiana Department of Chiild Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2013

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … Rather, Father’s “sole argument on appeal is that mentally retarded parents should be immune from losing their parental rights.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13.