Case law

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.

Jason T. Myers v. Gary W. Myers

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2014

Further, there is no requirement of a showing of good faith in order to qualify for the immunity. See id. at 341. … As such, both the Assessor’s Office and Whitlock are immune from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

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.

Martin v. Herb

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2020

IFP Status Because it appears that Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without the pre-payment of filing fees, his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. … Martin clearly has grievances. He believes that he has been wronged by numerous individuals and entities across decades.

White v. State

547 N.E.2d 831 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1989

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was placed in a position of grave peril establishing abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying his motion for mistrial. Johansen v. … Academy, along with her service as a fingerprint file clerk for the Evansville Police Department, were insufficient to qualify her as an expert witness in the field of fingerprint identification and comparison.

Thompson v. Elkhart Office of Family & Children

885 N.E.2d 603 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2008

Despite the hard work, mem *609 bership in a recognized tribe has not been established. … A finding is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences *616 drawn therefrom that support it. D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 264.

Green v. State

75 Ind. Dec. 589 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1980

Whether the evidence to support the conviction is insufficient in that the State did not establish by any evidence that Green, having been adjudged an habitual traffic offender, operated a motor vehicle *899 required to be … In holding that a person whose driver’s license was suspended was not a “qualified licensed driver” within the meaning of that term as used in an automobile rental con *900 tract, the Court of Appeals of Ohio in Hadden v.

Edwards v. Jagers

19 Ind. 407 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1862

annually thereafter, one trustee, in each township in the county, was to be elected by the voters thereof, which trustees, when so elected, were to hold their offices one year, and until their successors were elected and qualified … An extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court, in the Dartmouth College case, will clearly elucidate this proposition.

Tricia Dennis v. R&M Construction, Inc. and the Lakes of the Four Seasons Property Owners Association, Inc. (mem. dec.)

111 N.E.3d 260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2018

FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 14 2018, 9:19 am court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted

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.

Green v. State

870 N.E.2d 560 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2007

The admission of Green’s statement was not clearly erroneous. III. … Green has established no reversible error in the admission of evidence. Finally, he has failed to persuade us that his consecutive sentences are inappropriate. Affirmed. SHARPNACK, J., and MAY, J., concur. 1 .

Leah Johnson v. Justin W. Johnson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 18 2020, 5:30 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Husband asked the trial court to issue a qualified domestic relations order “QDRO” to award Wife the portion of his PSP to which she was entitled.

Henri v. Curto

908 N.E.2d 196 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2009

Henri object to Instruction No. 14, which purported to present the elements required to be proven to establish Mr. Curto's coun- terclaim. Finally, Ms. … A strict, literal application of the qualifying phrase "appropriately preserved during trial" in Rule 59(A) would preclude a party from presenting an appellate challenge of insufficient evi- dence despite the party having

Weida v. Kegarise

826 N.E.2d 691 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 2005

Even the Kegarises, in their brief, do not explain the amount of additur established by the trial court. 4 II. … The attorney was obviously expressing her personal opinion because she qualified each of her statements with the words “I think.”

Kartman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

247 F.R.D. 561 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2007

The burden is on the party asserting the doctrine to establish these elements. Bartlett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 206 F.R.D. 623, 628 (S.D.Ind.2002). … As noted above, the party asserting the work product doctrine must establish all of its elements on a doeument-by-document basis. Bartlett, 206 F.R.D. at 628 .

John Fenicle v. Indiana School for the Deaf (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2020

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-940 | December 23, 2020 Page 6 of 13 [11] The United States Supreme Court has explained that to have a property interest in employment, “a person clearly … More specifically, Fenicle fails to establish that he had a “statutory right” or a “legal duty” to work with the DOE. See Perkins, 141 N.E.3d at 1235.

Hughes v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

112 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 5, 2000

A comparison between the policy’s language and Herzberger’s “safe harbor” language clearly supports this conclusion. … It is certainly not clear that "Jackie” was any more medically qualified than Hackett-Wade, Smith, or Stief to evaluate Hughes' condition.

Mapes v. Cable One

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 2022

Nevertheless, the motion establishes that Mr. Mapes is unable to prepay the filing fee. … The ADA specifically includes an exhaustive list of private entities that qualify as public accommodations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181.

R.H. v. L.H. and C.H. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2018

Factual findings “are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them [and] . . . a judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact … The trial court’s findings regarding such were not clearly erroneous.

BLUE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESTORATION SERVICES, INC. v. LEGACY RESTO, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 4, 2023

As a general matter, "a stay of discovery is warranted only when a party raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue such [as] standing, jurisdiction, or qualified immunity." Id. … As such, the Court concludes that Defendant Legacy has not met its burden of establishing that good cause exists for a stay of all case deadlines and discovery.