Case law

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Culver Educational Foundation

535 N.E.2d 112 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1989

Bernauer, who was qualified as both a remedial reading instructor and a librarian, worked as a temporary librarian in Maryland for six months in 1976. … We find this issue was clearly raised by Culver in the court of appeals and the issue was not addressed in the court of appeals' opinion.

Cook v. State

734 N.E.2d 563 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2000

In response to the State’s argument, Cook conceded in his reply brief that “the record does not clearly establish the trial court judge rode on the bus with the jury to view the crime scene in the case at bar … In essence, Cook failed to establish the factual predicate upon which his expert’s testimony would have rested.

Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Home Owners Association, Inc., Andre B. Lacy, Julia L. Lacy, Elliot J. & Serena Androphy v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, and Dan Jacobs

106 N.E.3d 482 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2018

Section 36-7-11.1- 10(c) clearly and unambiguously states the appropriate standard of review for these decisions. … Clearly, this is an instance where people hold a wide variety of opinions.

Stokes v. State

908 N.E.2d 295 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2009

To qualify as fundamental, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Id. … Stokes called one of his girlfriends and asked her to say, apparently to establish an alibi, Stokes had been with her. There was ample evidence to support Stokes' convictions. 5.

WHITE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 2026

immunity. … immunity.

Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of Indianapolis, and Indy Parks and Recreation v. Richard Kaler

73 N.E.3d 712 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2017

Addressing Burrell’s first element—unreasonable risk of harm—the Pfenning court reasoned that “the risk of a person on a golf course being struck by a golf ball does not qualify as the Court of … It was clearly visible that there was no back railing for spectators Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1604-CT-865 | March 23, 2017 Page 12 of 14  sitting on the top row, but Funston leaned back

Berger v. Ohio Table Pad Co.

539 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2008

Accepting the Defendants’ argument arguendo, this would clearly render the '577 patent, which utilizes magnetism to hold table pads together, obvious. … The Plaintiffs are correct that the pleadings and briefs together clearly establish that the Plaintiffs have been arguing all along that the two patents describe the same invention and are thus interfering patents.

Wiseman v. Wiseman (In Re Wiseman)

351 B.R. 651 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2006

Noeldner opined that it would not qualify for additional lending and it could not afford to pay $30,000 a year for a new employee or for *657 an individual debt to Heidi. … He also stated that James could not personally afford to pay $30,000 a year and would not qualify for a loan. He stated that James reaffirmed his debt to TCU.

Indiana State Fair Board v. Hockey Corp. of America

165 Ind. App. 544 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1975

the state had the right to establish the free school system. … Clearly, the operation of an ice skating rink and a retail and rental skate shop is not within the recognized definition of agriculture.

Serrano v. State

808 N.E.2d 724 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2004

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Serrano argues that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence to establish his age at the time of the offense. … If that representation is accurate, Serrano clearly has a basis for a motion to dismiss the information if the State chooses to re-file the charges.

In Re the Matter of Patricia Rumfelt v. Alicia Hollars and Harry Arndt (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2017

Code §§ 31-17-5 because she no longer qualifies as a grandparent and, at the time of Child’s adoption by Mother’s husband, Rumfelt did not have any already-established right to visitation with Child … [28] Even assuming that Rumfelt is a person qualified to seek grandparent visitation under Ind.

Hendricks v. State Ex Rel. Northwest Indiana Crime Commission, Inc.

245 Ind. 43 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1964

Constitution] are clearly distinguishable, and, therefore, the cases decided under the latter constitutional provision are not controlling of the case now before us. … Reasonably, it would mean the bill, as described and qualified in the previous clause of the same sentence.

In the Matter of J.C., Minor Child, A Child in Need of Services, B.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2016

Sufficiency of the Evidence [38] Mother contends that the juvenile court’s adjudication of Child as CHINS is clearly erroneous. … Mother has failed to meet her burden to show that the CHINS adjudication was clearly erroneous.4 [48] Affirmed.

Sexson v. Servaas

830 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1993

Nothing in the complaint establishes why the judge should be prohibited from being in these organizations [i.e. GIPC & IFPI]. … or inferred in light of the established and uncontroverted facts.

Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2024

But it says public or private establishments contracted to remove solid waste from residential or commercial uses and transport such wastes. … This definition is clearly directed at typical garbage and recycling haulers.

CC v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2017

“To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.” Casselman v. … To obtain relief, the error must have made a fair trial impossible or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1611-JV-2960 | April 12, 2017 Page 7 of 10  amounted to a clearly blatant violation

McDuffy v. Hyiatt

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2025

Neidlinger could see the cell clearly and he reasonably determined extracting McDuffy from the 1 Sgt. … Neidlinger is entitled to qualified immunity. 6

Conner v. Anderson

259 F. Supp. 2d 741 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2003

An incorrect application of clearly established federal law is not necessarily an unreasonable one. Hough v. Anderson, 272 F.3d 878, 890 (7th Cir.2001). … The Indiana Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 3. Summary.

Washel v. Bryant

770 N.E.2d 902 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2002

We will not set aside the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when the record *905 lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … The breach of a contract does not by itself establish the damages that must be shown to bring an action for breach of contract. See, e.g., Rogier v.

In re the Paternity of E.E., J.E. v. T.C. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2016

[3] On September 14, 2011, Father filed a Petition to Establish Paternity and for Emergency Custody. … Findings will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Id.