Case law

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. K.S. ex rel. George-Jarrard

731 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 2010

Progressive argues that Luallen’s actions of “mooning” qualified as a criminal act for the purposes of the insurance policy. Section 35-45^4-1.5 of the Indiana Code does *836 make public nudity a crime. … Therefore, undisputed facts establish that Luallen did commit the crime of “public nudity,” even though he was never charged or convicted of that offense.

State Ex Rel. Van Buskirk v. WAYNE TP., ETC.

418 N.E.2d 234 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1981

Clearly, the legislature intended that the poor should receive necessary relief. The nature and extent of such relief are necessarily left in large part within the sound discretion of the Trustee. … There seems no need for the use of the qualifying word “emergency” in either situation.

Merriweather v. Parks

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 16, 2022

This is so because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.” Fymbo v. … The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements.

Wooley v. State

716 N.E.2d 919 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1999

Otherwise stated, the trial court is not bound by its own self-imposed deadlines as long as the parameters established by the Rule are met. … This claim requires Woo- *931 ley to establish that the offered mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835 (Ind.1999); see also Crawley v.

State of Indiana v. Douglas Kirby

120 N.E.3d 574 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2019

Under this test, we first determine whether the Legislature meant the Act to establish civil proceedings. If instead its intention was to impose punishment, then the inquiry ends. … Given these facts, I am Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-PL-2334 | March 4, 2019 Page 17 of 21  persuaded that this factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Statute as

United States v. Rodriguez

460 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 7, 2006

If the words of a statute have established common-law or criminal-law meanings, then courts will presume that Congress intended the words to have those established meanings absent clear evidence to the contrary. … These well-established rules of statutory construction are strictly applied when interpreting criminal statutes.

Kissel v. Lewis

156 Ind. 233 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1901

Christian, a competent and disinterested attorney of this' State, in good standing, who consented to serve, and was duly, qualified as -other judges, his appointment and oath being entered ón the order-book.' … But, j¡ even if valid, the license afforded the appellant no protec-'.jj. tion from the civil consequences of the unlawful and immoral practices set forth in the complaint and special find *246 ings, .and clearly established-by

Dectrick Price v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2018

not be Aug 02 2018, 9:21 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … We review the trial court’s rulings for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n

449 N.E.2d 276 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 31, 1983

The assertion of conclusions of law or opinions by one not qualified to testify to such, by affidavit, will not suffice." (Emphasis added). … Raymundo's affidavits as true, it was established that there were 'portions of Lake County which were not served by the Hammond Clinic * * *."

Jordan Manufacturing Co. v. Brittany Dyeing & Printing Corp.

822 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2011

Because there are facts genuinely in dispute that could establish that Brittany has a lien against Jordan Manufacturing’s property, the Court DENIES the motion. … First, whether storage and handling fees are a trade custom, and whether Jordan was or should have been aware of this, are clearly facts in dispute.

Dedric Thompson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 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, … We accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not give deference to the court’s conclusions of law. Id.

In Re Adoption of M.L. J.H. v. J.L. and C.L.

973 N.E.2d 1216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2012

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Adoptive Parents had established all three grounds for dispensing with Father’s consent. … At the hearing, it was established that Father had a long history of drug use, mental health issues, frequent moves, and frequent changes in employment.

Greg Allen Const. Co., Inc. v. Estelle

762 N.E.2d 760 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2002

On November 19, 1996, McGaughey and the Estelles learned that the value of the property with the proposed renovations would be only $89,000, not enough to qualify for the requested loan. … Pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), we may not reverse unless the court's judgment is clearly erroneous. B.

Robinson v. Gazvoda

783 N.E.2d 1245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2003

That the evidence established that there was damage to the unit in an amount exceeding the damage deposit and therefore the Gazvoda's [sic] were entitled to keep the damage deposit. … However, the next sentence qualifies this statement by stating, "The landlord is not liable under this chapter until supplied by the tenant in writing with a mailing address to which to deliver the notice and amount prescribed

Rose A. Martiradonna f/k/a Rose A. Rynberk v. Gilbert W. Rynberk (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2015

We cannot say that its conclusion is clearly against the facts and circumstances of the case. … [30] “[I]t is well established in Indiana that ‘future earnings are not considered part of the marital estate for purposes of property division.’” Severs v.

Colman v. Heidenreich

366 N.E.2d 686 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1977

The prosecutor also *688 informed Colman that immunity from criminal prosecution would be given to his female client, if she would come forward and identify herself. … it is obvious that the privilege was not waived by Colman's limited revealment of part of the conversation, since the male client is the only one who could waive the privilege. [1] Tabereaux contends that Colman has not clearly

Biomet, Inc. v. Smith

238 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 2002

Therefore, Smith need only establish a defamatory statement that was published and damages. … Absolute privilege provides judges, attorneys, parties and witnesses, in connection with a judicial proceeding, immunity from liability even if they publish defamatory material with an improper motive.

Murphy v. State

475 N.E.2d 42 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1985

As our law clearly allows, the state must establish an independent source for an in-court identification by demonstrating through clear and convincing evidence that the witness/es did have, at some time independent of any … Robbery, Class B, was established. See Manley v. State (1980), Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1338 .

State v. Van Cleave

674 N.E.2d 1293 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1996

Van Cleave’s intoxication clearly did not preclude him from forming the intent required for felony murder in this case. … We do not, and need not, reweigh this evidence here because even taking it as true Van Cleave would have failed to qualify for the intoxication defense for the reasons we have discussed. 22 .

Lake County Department of Public Welfare v. Marino (In Re Marino)

29 B.R. 797 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 26, 1983

Appellant argues that the welfare department is clearly not the debtor’s spouse or child and, therefore, the debt is not within § 523(a)(5)’s nondischargeable exceptions. … This qualifying clause did not appear in section 17(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Act, and represents a significant change.