Case law

Studabaker v. Faylor

66 Ind. App. 175 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1917

behalf of himself and other legatees, to appellant’s appointment, in which, he alleged that he was a legatee and devisee under the will of Catherine Faylor, deceased; that an administrator had been duly appointed and had qualified … Proceedings to probate a will are actions to determine the property rights of living persons by establishing the evidence thereof, and they precede ' the first steps in the settlement of the estate under the probate jurisdiction

Trustees of the Indiana State Council of Roofers Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Korellis Roofing, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2026

As the party asserting attorney-client privilege, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing all of its essential elements. … Thus, “[m]aterials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by' the doctrine

Campbell v. State

551 N.E.2d 1164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1990

Trial judges are uniquely qualified to assess such dynamics. … These crimes clearly were egregious under the facts and their effects upon the community relevant.

SKILES v. HAMILTON COUNTY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 21, 2023

In any event, Officer Rebollar is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available when a defendant's conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Flinn v. State

563 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1990

Code § 35-45-6-1 discussed above, but also by the requirement of § 35-45-6-2 that once a pattern of racketeering activity has been established, it must be connected to an interest in or control of real property or an enterprise … State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 883, 888 , “[t]he record clearly shows that the trial court was well aware that such sentence had been set aside....

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

208 Ind. 655 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1935

This is clearly beyond the obvious purposes of the legislation. In Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission (1916), 241 U. S. 351 , 36 Sup. Ct. … It is pointed out in a learned opinion by Chief Justice White that the right to an unrestricted flow of rivers and streams is qualified by a limitation permitting structures for the control of accidental and extraordinary

United States v. Grimm

865 F. Supp. 1303 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 26, 1994

Grimm, Sr.’s will does not provide for the establishment of a spendthrift trust or a discretionary trust, but for the establishment of a support trust. … The law applicable is clearly stated in Clay v.

Lopez - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO FILINGS v. Trump

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2025

According to Lopez, “[t]he negligence of leadership and the thought of immunity compromised the American people and citizens of the nation.” Id. at 2. … He claims President Trump’s “agenda is clearly monetary, and the effects of Covid cost the American people trillions of dollars of debt.” Id.

Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance v. Alvin C. Putman

98 N.E.3d 98 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2018

Putman filed a reply arguing that his misdemeanor battery conviction did not constitute a qualifying offense to revoke his license because it was not a misdemeanor in which an element of the offense involves violence under … While we do not attempt to establish the boundaries of the occurrences in which an element of a misdemeanor offense involves violence, we cannot conclude that the Commissioner was unreasonable in determining that Putman's

Williams v. Martinez

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2020

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 … To establish a violation of the right to access the courts, an inmate must show that unjustified acts or conditions (by defendants acting under color of law) hindered the inmate’s efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal

Felder v. Oliverio

934 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1996

The Court will also defer examining the issues of town policy, punitive damages and qualified immunity because the underlying claim affects the determination of those issues. … Indiana Code 36-8-3-4(m), in establishing the duration of the term of the police chief office, does not conflict with the four-year limitation imposed by the Constitution.

Board of School Trustees v. Benetti

492 N.E.2d 1098 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 1986

Indiana Code Section 20-5-1-8 (Burns 1985 Repl.) sets forth various applicable definitions: "(a) 'School corporation shall mean any local public school corporation established under the laws of the state of Indiana, including … There is a strict presumption that a statute is constitutional which continues until it is clearly shown to be otherwise. Wallman v. State (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 1346, 1348 ; Tapp, at 300.

Jeffrey Embrey v. State of Indiana

989 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Upon review, we conclude that the NPLEx report is imbued with an independent indicia of trustworthiness, and, as such, qualifies as a business record.

Buquer v. City of Indianapolis

797 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2011

action seeking injunctive relief has been established. 2. … Thus, the balance of harms weighs clearly in Plaintiffs’ favor. V. Public Interest Plaintiffs have also established that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Black v. Employee Solutions, Inc.

725 N.E.2d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2000

Generally, where the intent of the parties can be clearly ascertained from language of the contract, courts recognize and enforce the parties’ agreement. Mortgage Consultants, 655 N.E.2d at 496 . … The evidence does not show a mutual intent of the parties to establish an employer-employee relationship. 2 B.

Boehm v. Town of St. John

675 N.E.2d 318 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1996

Article 10, Section 1, does not immunize legislative policy judgments from judicial oversight, but rather establishes mandatory minimum requirements for our system of property assessment and taxation. … The necessity of these further proceedings requires vacating the deadline established by the Tax Court.

Phyllis Dodson, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Eboni Dodson v. Curt D. Carlson, Carmel Hotel Company, d/b/a Grille 39, Seven Corners, Inc.

14 N.E.3d 781 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2014

Id. 3  The standard by which we review a summary judgment is well-established. … In those cases of mixed elements clearly the case should go to the jury because of the question of fact considering the purpose of the trip and whether or not the employee was acting within the scope of

Daniel R. Collar II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2020

The provisions of Indiana Criminal Rule 4 implement the defendant’s speedy trial right by establishing deadlines by which trials must be held. Id. … The trial court’s decision to set Collar’s trial beyond the seventy-day speedy trial window was not clearly erroneous. See Austin v.

David E. Corbett v. State

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2002

review of this claim despite the defendant's failure to establish that he properly raised the issue at trial. … When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance, the defendant must establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.

K.F. v. State

961 N.E.2d 501 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2012

occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.2001). a. … Here, the officer’s testimony did indeed constitute hearsay and did not qualify under Evidence Rule 801(d) for exclusion from the definition of hearsay.