Case law

Walther v. Indiana Lawrence Bank

579 N.E.2d 643 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1991

The essence of the program was that for each qualified loan a bank made to a farmer, the State would deposit matching funds with that bank in the form of a certificate of deposit. … Indiana has not statutorily nor through case law clearly established a statute of limitations for RICO violations.

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Woodbury Glass Co.

80 Ind. App. 298 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1918

Hence the establishment and construction of the drain was only incidently involved. … The instruction comes clearly within such rule and the court did not err in giving the same.

Teresa Figert/B. Green v. State

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1998

However, the Supreme Court cautioned in Leon that certain police conduct would not qualify for the exception, including where the warrant was based on an affidavit “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official … Probable cause clearly existed with respect to the first two homes, and the totality of the circumstances established some suspicion or possibility of a joint drug-dealing enterprise at the Farm. But this is not enough.

Ziegler v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

797 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 21, 2003

The legislature established a similar procedure for those persons who seek the refund of taxes on a class-wide basis. … The standard of review for alleged violations of the Indiana Constitution is well established: a statute is presumed constitutional until the party challenging its constitutionality clearly overcomes the presumption by a

BEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 11, 2026

This allegation fails to state a claim because it alleges actions that are clearly subject to prosecutorial immunity. Kalina v. … When stripped of the conclusory allegations, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations plausibly establishing any liability on part of defendants.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.R.W., M.A.W., Ja.W., Se.W., Sa.W., and C.W. (Minor Children), and J.R. (Mother) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2016

It is clearly unsafe for the children to be in the care of the parents. … “We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment.” Id.

Leona Rae Hawk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

In particular, the rule to show cause is required to (1) clearly and distinctly set forth the facts that are alleged to constitute the contempt; (2) specify the time and place … “To qualify as fundamental error, ‘an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.’” Absher v. State, 866 N.E.2d 350, 355 (Ind. Ct.

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III of Marion County, Indiana v. Traders Point Association of Neighborhoods, Kenneth F. Zahora (TRS), Cherie L. Zahora (TRS)

81 N.E.3d 1120 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2017

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The facts set forth above clearly established Three Mile as the equitable owner of the Property. Gurpreet, as the registered agent of Three Mile, was therefore properly listed on the Application.

In Re: The Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.A., N.A., W.A., W.A., (Minor Children), and, R.F.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2018

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … The record supports the trial court’s finding, and it is not clearly erroneous.

Abed v. Rios

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2022

The Plaintiff’s motion establishes that he is unable to prepay the filing fee. … Code § 34-9-3-4.2 Because the Court finds the Plaintiff’s asserted facts clearly indicate he is not currently the decedent’s estate’s personal representative, it denies many of his claims.

In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.

930 N.E.2d 1169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2010

Indiana Code § 35-37-6-9, which establishes the victim-advocate privilege, has never been interpreted. … About a year later, the legislature responded by enacting a statute establishing a victim-sexual assault counselor privilege.

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

Aguilar v. State

416 N.E.2d 887 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1981

Furthermore, it is well *890 established that control of the examination of a witness lies with the trial court, not with the witness. Smith v. State (1st Dist. 1974) 160 Ind.App. 622, 632 , 312 N.E.2d 896, 902 . … The record clearly shows Aguilar refused to answer several questions propounded by the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the trial court.

Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis R. R. v. Hendricks

41 Ind. 48 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1872

It seems to us that the above proposition of law was too broadly stated, and should have been qualified. The law as stated by this court, in The E. & C. R. R. Co. v. … Do not the facts clearly and conclusively show that the decedent was not in fault?

Coleman v. City of Gary

220 Ind. 446 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1942

This statute provided for certain necessary qualifications for appointment to the department; for physical and mental examinations of all applicants; *457 for the instruction of applicants in a school to be established by … This provision of the rule made invalid the requirement of the commission in the instant case that the officer so demoted pass an examination to prove himself qualified to be placed on such eligible list. .

State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. United Financial Systems Corp.

926 N.E.2d 8 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2010

Conclusion The evidence establishes that the respondents have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. … In our order scheduling briefing in this matter, the parties were advised that the Commissioner's findings would be reversed only if found to be clearly erroneous. See GKN Co. v.

Pepple v. Parkview Memorial Hospital, Inc.

511 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1987

Even ascribing to the Kennedy court the unlikely [1] intention to limit the standard to public hospitals, one would think such limitation would have been clearly set forth. … profession is jeopardized: "To recognize hospital disciplinary proceedings as privileged, regardless of the purpose for which disclosure is sought, would in effect grant such committees, their members and participants absolute immunity

Kent A. Easley v. State of Indiana, Shelby County Prosecutor's Office, R. Kent Apsley, J. Brad Landwerlen, Shelby Co. Probation Dept.,, Deanna Holder, Shelby Co. Superior Ct One Clerk

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED establishing the defense of res judicata, … We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Progressive Ins. Co., 777 N.E.2d at 94. Id.

City of Evansville v. Blue

212 Ind. 130 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 18, 1937

There was a rule that before a boy can qualify to swim in deep water he must pass a test, consisting of swimming the width of the pool three times under the supervision of the guard. … “It was incumbent upon defendant in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, to sustain his declaration with evidence, and to establish the averments of some one of its counts.

Apter v. Ross

781 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 2003

The Father did not establish that his actions constituted an acceptable exception to the Federal wire-tapping law. … We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Gary did not meet his burden.