Case law

Hill v. Sanders

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 7, 2022

court must review the merits of a prisoner 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 … Appx. 353, 355 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Bridges and finding qualified immunity applied to shield the defendant because it had not been clearly established “that a threat to file a grievance was protected”); Cobian v.

Lisa Baushke v. Eric Miller (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2017

[Father] filed a Petition [t]o Establish Paternity on May 24, 2013. … Feb. 7, 2016), that even where a court’s order does not amount to a final judgment or qualify as an interlocutory order under Ind.

Smith v. State

420 N.E.2d 1225 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 27, 1981

Also, the lone surviving victim of this incident, Betty Spencer, clearly identified Smith as one of the four killers. I. … This questioning established that Wright had been housed in the same cell as Stonebraker in the Parke and Jasper County jails.

Lee v. Schroeder

529 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1988

The affidavit must set forth facts which would be admissible in evidence, and the assertions or conclusions of law or opinions by one not qualified to testify to such will not suffice. Raymundo v. … Clearly, the factual base, the medical records, upon which Dr. Davis rendered his opinion was hearsay.

Baskin v. Bogan

12 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 2014

However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). … Then in 1996, the Supreme Court decided Romer — the first case that clearly shows a change in direction away from Baker.

In re: The Adoption of N.T., a minor child, M.T. v. J.T. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2018

In June 2015, Natural Father filed a petition to establish his paternity of Child. In November 2015, Mother and Natural Father entered a stipulation establishing Natural Father’s paternity. … The trial court’s findings or judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id.

City of Evansville Ex Rel. Department of Redevelopment v. Reising

547 N.E.2d 1106 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1989

The trial court’s assignment of the burdens of proof was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. … The judgment of the court is final and conclusive, unless an appeal is taken as in other civil actions.” *1111 The record establishes that the Evansville Redevelopment Commission followed the proper procedures for initiating

Russell Goodman v. Stephanie Goodman

94 N.E.3d 733 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2018

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id.

Indiana State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors Ex Rel. Little v. Kaufman

463 N.E.2d 513 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 1984

The decision and the Board's interpretation of the regulation upon which the decision was based are contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity. 7. … The statutes governing funeral directors and embalmers contain a number of sections whose purpose clearly include the public health and sanitation in the disposal or burial of dead human bodies.

Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC d/b/a Golden Living v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2020

this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 10 2020, 10:44 am court except for the purpose of establishing … agency’s action if it is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

M.H. v. C.R.

918 N.E.2d 736 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

Moreover, it was established that S.A.' … We therefore hold the Department's power to withhold consent to adoption, regardless of the means by which the Department obtained eustody, is qualified by 1C 31-3-1-6(g), allowing the trial court to dispense with the consent

Walker v. State

255 Ind. 65 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1970

This Court has, however, followed the policy of deciding appeals on their merit where it is practicable for us to do so, and when the *76 issues have been clearly placed before us. Locke v. … Therefore, inasmuch as the witness was not qualified as being competent to testify to the appellant’s general reputation in the community, and since the testimony he gave related to specific acts or occurrences, the evidence

Huffman v. Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication

811 N.E.2d 806 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2004

AOPA provides that to qualify for administrative review of an agency order, a person must: (1) States facts demonstrating that: (A) the petitioner is a person to whom the order … Dickson, J., concurs in result without opinion. ----------------------- [1] The OEA was established in 1995 to review decisions made by the commissioner of IDEM. Ind.

Henderson v. Pierce

108 Ind. 462 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1886

In respect to the first proposition, the decision of this court, as clearly set forth in the opinion in the case of Grubbs v. … It may readily be supposed that it was a question in the mind of the assignor whether or not such preferences as were directed in the deed were authorized; hence the qualifying words that the assignee should pay thus and

Johnson v. Wait

947 N.E.2d 951 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2011

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a qualified exception to the general rule that the mere fact of injury will not create an inference of negligence.” Syfu v. Quinn, 826 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Cobb

738 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 1990

This court also notes that FNMA failed to discover precedent which was established in this circuit as early as 1943. See, Blank v. Bitker, supra. … Under Indiana law, even if at a prior time a mortgagee’s agent clearly reflected the mortgagee’s desire to accelerate the mortgage note in a letter or note to the mortgagor, an invitation to tender the amount due in order

Robert Holland, The Law Firm of Robert M. Holland III, and Holland Real Estate, LLC v. Lake County Sheriff's Department (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2019

App. 1996) (“A challenge to the mailing of notice is precluded when the docket clearly states that notice was mailed.”)), trans. denied. … The ITCA provides substantial immunity for conduct within the scope of a public employee’s employment to ensure that public employees can exercise the independent judgment necessary to carry out their

American United Life Insurance Co. v. Maley

803 N.E.2d 276 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 13, 2004

may reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Furthermore, Cosaro's statements that the AUL building was "beautiful" and "made downtown" are merely conclusions and do not qualify as probative evidence. See Lacy Diversified Indus., Ltd. v.

Dixon v. United States

867 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 27, 1993

This is clearly an objective test and does not require inquiry into the subjective mind of the taxpayer. … In addition, the Forms 870-P for the years of 1984,1985,1986 and 1987 clearly state that “the annual rate of interest payable on the partner’s tax deficiencies ... shall be 120% of the adjusted rate established under section

KINSELLA v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2020

Kinsella’s argument that this case falls within an exception to the intra-corporate immunity doctrine—an argument that IU Health suggests was raised for the first time in Dr. … In his September 27, 2019 Order, Judge Brookman stated, “[a]s part of the decision to re-open the case, the Court agreed to re-establish the remaining deadlines in this matter (i.e. discovery for expert witness, damages