Case law

Budkiewicz v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.

238 Ind. 535 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1958

In- this regard it is to be noted that the word “remain” which qualifies the “standing” of such cars is defined in- Webster’s New International Dictionary as follows: “To be left after others have been removed' or -destroyed … The diligent adherence of our courts to the doctrine -of stare decisis has established our courts as the stabiliz *556 ing force of our society.

Samtwan Hobby v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

Hobby admitted that he qualified for the habitual offender enhancement. … “A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id.

Cook v. Loftus

414 N.E.2d 581 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1981

Whether the appellees qualify as interested parties under IC 29-1-7-17. 2. Whether the appellees failed to join all necessary parties required under IC 29-1-7-17. … Adams, if any she had, grew out of an alleged will executed by him in her favor, had the burden of proving the facts which she alleged in her complaint as the basis of such interest, and was required to establish by proof

JEFFERS v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2019

“For a delay in treatment to qualify as deliberate indifference, we must weigh the seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing treatment.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). … To certify a class, a plaintiff must establish, among other things, that he will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Peter S. Bezich, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

33 N.E.3d 1160 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

We agree that competing options for establishing damages should not preclude class certification. … Any conflict as to the method of establishing damages is outweighed by the class members’ overall interest in establishing Lincoln’s liability class-wide.

Gagg v. Vetter

41 Ind. 228 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1872

duty is enjoined in consideration of the privileges and immunities which the act of incorporation confers and secures. … The first fact being proved, the more perfectly - the structure of the work is justified, the more clearly its misuse is shown.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Rottger, Rec.

99 Ind. App. 485 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1934

Can this be so when the language in that paragraph clearly and unequivocally provides that as to such premiums actually collected, the agent shall hold the same, less commissions thereon, for the appellant, as a fiduciary … Court is, therefore, affirmed. 1 The trust company, for which the appellee is receiver, was closed by the order of the bank commissioner of this state on the 23d day of October, 1930, and the receiver was appointed and qualified

Max Nicholson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Wise, 26 N.E.2d at 143. … The State responds that circumstantial evidence established that they were trustworthy business records and, thus, properly admitted.

Whittington v. State

669 N.E.2d 1363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

Whittington's Conviction Whittington has established that the state restricted his expressive activity. … But while the Indiana Constitution does not grant unlimited legislative power, neither does it establish a system of expressly enumerated powers.

Brandon Francis Schaefer v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2025

Schaefer’s educational records before interviewing him regarding special education support in 2018, that Schaefer had reported “meltdowns, nervous breakdowns, those kinds of things,” and that he qualified … [31] It is well settled that “a defendant in Indiana can avoid criminal responsibility by successfully raising and establishing the ‘insanity defense.’” Galloway v.

Maez v. State

530 N.E.2d 1203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1988

The instructions were: “FINAL INSTRUCTION # 12 The doctrine of ‘reasonable doubt’ applies to the law, as well as to the facts established or not established by the evidence, and you should give the Defendant the benefit of … The State counters by arguing that, here, the deleted portions were completely blacked out and not at all readable, whereas in Cornett , thin lines were drawn through paragraphs and sentences so that the language was clearly

MJ Acquisitions, Inc. v. Tec Investments, LLC

863 N.E.2d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2007

Nieto argued that there was no spring installment due for 1996 as a result of the reassessment and, therefore, that the trial court’s finding and conclusion were clearly erroneous. … Thus, the trial court’s finding that the 1996 spring installment was unpaid and its conclusion that the home was, therefore, properly included on the 1997 delinquency list were not clearly erroneous.

State Ex Rel. Harris v. Scott Circuit Court

437 N.E.2d 952 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1982

This Court has already established that it will issue a writ of mandate and prohibition to compel the performance of any duty enjoined by law upon a trial court. … The record clearly indicates that the respondent trial judge admitted to Gordonier that such intense conflict had developed in this case that the parties could not proceed with Hoodenpyl involved.

Jones v. State

847 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006

This discrepancy in testimony does not establish prejudice for Strickland purposes. … There, the defendant, though given use immunity, refused to testify against his fellow inmate in a drug case. Id.

Howard Publications, Inc. v. Lake Michigan Charters, Ltd.

649 N.E.2d 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1995

Webber, Sr. of the Porter Superior Court qualified as special judge on June 16, 1994. The parties began discovery. Pursuant to court order, non-party Lake Michigan Charters, Ltd. … It does not matter whether the envelope was sealed when the reporter found it, nor does it matter whether the envelope was clearly marked as confidential. .

J.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Employer (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2017

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 09 2017, 8:25 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Moreover, the evidence does not qualify for judicial notice under Indiana Evidence Rule 201.

Galloway v. State

480 N.E.2d 223 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1985

of seven (7) judges who shall hold their office for six (6) years and until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. … Miller, (1983) Ind.App., 451 N.E.2d 1099 , we cannot say that the evidence clearly points to Galloway's release for there appears a serious question of his continuing on medication to remain without symptoms of his mental

Tenta v. Guraly

140 Ind. App. 160 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1966

This establishment of when the alleged tortious act occurred is essential because of the burden of establishing knowledge and intent as of that time. … Again this testimony, so clearly hearsay, is important. The inherent danger of hearsay evidence is illustrated by this self-serving answer.

Darrin L. Burns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2018

Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 15 2018, 9:02 am court except for the purpose of establishing … He did qualify that somewhat in discussion later about that but I think the State is entitled to look at that and say this is a person who seems to be someone less than decisive and

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company NIPSCO Industrial Group and United States Steel Corporation

76 N.E.3d 144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2017

He explained that a specific low-income rate [for a payment assistance program] should not be established, as it sends a negative price signal. … [11] An order from the IURC is presumed valid unless the contrary is clearly apparent. Citizens Action Coalition of Ind., Inc. v. S. Ind. Gas and Elec.