Case law

Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Department

619 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2008

At that time, Plaintiff was certified as a qualified engineer with the State of Indiana to drive IFD’s fire vehicles of various types and sizes. She was also qualified as a paramedic. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16). 3. … based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must show “(1) that ‘the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law’; and (2) that ‘this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities

Bailey v. State

260 Ind. 448 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 24, 1973

The record establishes the following: 1. Appellant was charged in the Ohio court by affidavit rather than by indictment. 2. … Since the record before our habeas judge clearly established that no determination of probable cause was made by any judge or any other official who might qualify as a neutral and detached magistrate, prior to the issuance

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.

Gregory v. Zimmerman

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2023

Only two of them need to be addressed to establish that I must deny Gregory’s motion, albeit without prejudice to his pursuing indemnification in a state court proceeding. … Otherwise, the State would forfeit its Eleventh Amendment immunity every time the Attorney General defends a state employee in federal court, which is clearly not the case.

Terry E. Garber, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 2020

Garber has failed to establish harmful error, much less fundamental error, in this regard. B. Dr. … This does not quite qualify as impermissible vouching. See, e.g., Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, 71 N.E.3d 887, 893 (Ind. Ct.

Dickey v. Citizens State Bk. of Fairmount

98 Ind. App. 58 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1932

The principal questions presented by this appeal can more clearly be shown by a brief statement of the facts as set forth in the pleadings. On November 20th, 1928, Benjamin F. … This court is not at liberty to qualify or control such language in a will by conjecture or doubt arising from extraneous facts which might exist.

Antione Nelson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

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 estoppel, or the law of the case. … However, footage from Officer Teare’s dash camera clearly revealed that Nelson was the driver. At the close of the evidence, the trial court found Nelson guilty on all Counts.

Hummel v. St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners

57 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2014

To succeed on the merits of a claim under Title II, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that [she] has a qualifying disability; (2) that [she] is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for which the public … Wright must establish “(1) that [she] has a qualifying disability; (2) that [she] is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for which the public entity is responsible, or is otherwise discriminated

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

State ex rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Lehman

177 Ind. App. 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1978

His contrary findings, as the evidence clearly reveals, did not require a reweighing of the evidence. CHARGE: Using a state-owned vehicle for personal use. … How was it established that they were not to do it if there is no written rule or regulation. A. Well, you just did not use State property for your own personal use. That seems — Q.

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Bower

752 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2010

If the pleadings disclose that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, no defense is required. Id. I. … The Policies clearly provide that they do not cover “punitive or exemplary damages.” (Policies, p. 12).

Latimer v. Lake County Treasurer (In re Latimer)

528 B.R. 166 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 2, 2015

Given the foregoing, § 108(b) clearly applies to the facts of this case. … It also certainly qualifies as the performance of, “any other similar act” by a deadline.

Public Service Indiana, Inc. v. Nichols

494 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1986

If the testimony is in an area in which the jurors are as well-qualified as the expert to form an opinion, the testimony should not be permitted. Id. … The trial transcript clearly illustrates that the problem of stray voltage is a complex area of electricity requiring special knowledge to understand both the causes of and solutions for the problem.

Decker v. State

528 N.E.2d 1119 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1988

This evidence clearly indicates an intention to steal the University’s property and to permanently deprive them of it. … The trial court has wide discretion to determine when a witness is qualified to give an expert opinion. The court’s decision will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Knapp v.

Smith v. US Department of Ed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2019

It concluded that Plaintiff did not qualify for a loan discharge: After a thorough review of your application, the U.S. … It is a fundamental tenant of jurisprudence that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit absent a waiver of that immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).

City of Crawfordsville v. Hays

42 Ind. 200 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1873

These are usually established in different parts of the cities and towns for the convenience of the inhabitants. … The entire town or city constitutes the district, however many different schools may be established.

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.

J.M. v. M.A.

928 N.E.2d 230 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2010

s grandmother to establish a guardianship over him. Sometime thereafter, M.A. … We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before it. Id. at 953 .

Brown v. State

653 N.E.2d 77 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1995

In evaluating the propriety of a warrantless search on appeal, the trial court’s findings of fact are accepted unless clearly erroneous and the review of the conclusions of law is performed de novo. … Since the seizure occurred without a warrant and does not qualify under any of the various exceptions to that requirement, it violated the Fourth Amendment.

Nugent v. Laduke

87 Ind. 482 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

(bottom p. 938), it is said that in equity it is established that, “ generally speaking, the executor or administrator can make no valid sale or pledge of the assets as a security for, or in payment of, his own debt; on the … If the complaint, by its averments, does not clearly and directly show that Koons received the note and mortgage as-executor, it does not show that he received them otherwise-than as executor.