Case law

CISLO v. BANTRY GROUP CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 2, 2020

Additionally, he asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Cislo has responded in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Osburn has filed a reply. For the reasons explained below, Mr. … He also contends that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the doctrine of qualified immunity. A.

Miles v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity. … Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 616 (2007) (once the court determines there to be no constitutional violation, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity”); Chavez v.

Harry F. Bolton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 16 2015, 7:30 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata … Although Bolton was clearly on probation, he was not “confined on home detention” at Club Soda.

Cockrum v. State

250 Ind. 366 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1968

Appellant contends that a proper foundation was not laid for such testimony in that the prior testimony of each witness did not qualify them to give such an opinion. *371 In substance, all three (3) witnesses testified as … It is true that on their face, Instructions No. 21 and No. 25 do not establish the State’s burden of proving the defendant sane at the time of the crime charged. However,.

R.Y. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

904 N.E.2d 1257 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2009

Discussion I The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v. … But Fishel qualified her recommendation.

Soloman v. Blue Chip Casino, Inc.

772 N.E.2d 515 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2002

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under a clearly erroneous standard if the trial court has issued findings of fact and conclusions of law after an evidentiary hearing. Id. … The Plaintiffs cite to the deposition of the Blue Chip casino boat's captain to establish the specific manner in which the Coast Guard exercises authority over the boat.

Bennett v. Indiana Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

688 N.E.2d 171 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1997

Such an amendment raises a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intention more clearly. … The burden is on the Association to establish the existence of these three elements. Id.

Wright Manufacturing Corp. v. Scott

172 Ind. App. 154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1977

Further, the trial court’s Finding of Fact No. 11 is clearly erroneous. … We do not agree that there was no evidence tending to establish that Scott was responsible for obtaining Wright’s 1970-1971 model year accounts.

Foltz v. Evans

113 Ind. App. 596 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1943

This conditional or qualified acceptance amounted to a rejection of appellee’s offer as made, Kritz v. Moon (1928), 88 Ind. App. 5 , 163 N. … The case reviews several earlier cases on the subj'ect to the effect that parol proof of the connection of papers is not admissible to establish a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing, but that the

Fowler v. Brewer

773 N.E.2d 858 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2002

Clearly, the deadline to file a tort claim notice came and went before Brewer filed his original answer on April 5, 2000. … Clearly, the Fowlers’ letter to Cincinnati Insurance Company fails to comply with the form, content, and timing requirements of the notice statute. McConnell, 698 N.E.2d at 868 .

White Eagle Cooperative Assoc. v. Johanns

508 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2007

Moreover, numerous Circuit Court decisions have established the purpose of the affidavit requirement. See Gibson v. … Lyng, non-pooled milk does not qualify as milk purchased from producers. County Line Cheese Co. v.

Gallagher v. State

922 N.E.2d 588 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2010

During that period of time, however, the defendant was principally engaged in conduct related to unlawful drug activities clearly visible to anyone present, and thus his thirteen and one half mi- nutes in the proscribed zone … does not qualify as "briefly."

Merica v. Burget

36 Ind. App. 453 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1905

The facts as found by the trial court, relative to the acts and doings of the appellant Merica, clearly bring him within the business of banking, as defined in the case *461 of First Nat. Bank v. … The business of the bank thus established was more or less the fruit of the good-will they had established for the institution and their influence with the ¡aeople of that vicinity with whom they, as bankers, had dealt.

GALVAN v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2022

. § 1983 for monetary damages; (4) the State of Indiana is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) Ms. Crum is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Crum's qualified immunity defense. iI. Conclusion As detailed above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 108] is GRANTED.

Wright v. Elston

701 N.E.2d 1227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1998

A litigant who chooses to proceed pro se will be held to the same established rules of procedure as trained legal counsel. Diaz v. Carpenter, 650 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). … This statute extends immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act to attorneys employed by a governmental entity, whether as an employee or as an independent contractor.

Osborne v. State

754 N.E.2d 916 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2001

Before claiming that his right to self-representation has been denied, a defendant must timely, clearly, and unequivocally assert that right. Dobbins v. State, 721 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind.1999); Sherwood v. … The determination of whether a witness qualifies for the exemption found in clause (8) is within the trial court's discretion and is subject to review for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 256-57 .

Woodruff v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

947 N.E.2d 934 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2011

The Social Security Act mandates the establishment of minimum health and safety standards that must be met by providers and suppliers participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs. U.S. … An amendment to a statute raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law, unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intent more clearly.

Hardin v. CNA Ins. Companies

103 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 1999

Several weeks later, CNA hired two white people for the customer service manager positions who were allegedly less qualified than Hardin. See id. ¶¶ 16, 19. … While this may be a plausible way to establish a uniform federal statute of limita-lions, it seems clearly to hit wide of the mark.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health

984 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 26, 2013

Physical plant specifications have been established for abortion clinics. 410 I.A.C. 26-17-2. … The Court also concludes that PPINK has established irreparable harm.

Luhnow v. Horn

760 N.E.2d 621 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2001

In this case, the Luhnows fail to meet two of the three criteria establishing third-party beneficiary status. … The Drainage Board is not immune from all liability under the common-enemy doctrine merely because we hold that it is a landowner with respect to its easement.