Case law

Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

598 N.E.2d 647 · Indiana Tax Court · Aug 19, 1992

Transmission of electricity is clearly within the sale transaction, and the expert testimony supports the Department's claim that some electricity generated at IKEC travels completely within Indiana to IM and SIGECO. … Electricity qualifies as "goods" within the meaning of the UCC. Helvey v. Wabash County REMC (1972), 151 Ind.App. 176, 179 , 278 N.E.2d 608, 610 . 7 .

Leone v. COM'R, BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES

933 N.E.2d 1244 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2010

Public Interest Finally, the public interest element of the law on injunctions clearly favors the Bureau. … Requiring the Bureau to recognize names without verification would just as clearly disserve that interest.

Daniels v. State

528 N.E.2d 775 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1988

He was qualified as an expert witness in the forensic use of hypnosis. The gist of Dr. … Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument fails to establish appellate counsel was ineffective under the Strickland guidelines, thereby failing to demonstrate any error.”

Snyder v. King

958 N.E.2d 764 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2011

Contrary to the State’s assertions, this argument clearly is supported by the case law. … Our method of constitutional interpretation is well-established.

Suan v. Hollis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … To establish a violation of the right to access the courts, an inmate must show that unjustified acts or conditions hindered the inmate’s efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim, and that actual harm resulted.

Collins

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 4, 2025

As such, Murphy is financially qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. … ” the Court must dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Thompson v. Thompson

811 N.E.2d 888 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2004

Whether the trial court's division of the Thompson marital estate was clearly erroneous; VII. … The trial court also required M.T. and J.T. to apply for "any and all scholarships or grants" for which they may qualify. Id.

Fogarty v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 4, 2021

Fogarty plausibly alleges that he is a qualified person with a disability and that he was excluded from this program solely because he is in a wheelchair. … To establish such a claim, he must allege “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First Amendment

City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals v. UJ-Eighty Corporation

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2020

zoning decision that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Rather, it “is a commonplace and precise way of describing which organizations qualify as fraternities or sororities.” (BZA’s Br. 17).

Roche v. Anderson

132 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 6, 2001

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Williams, 120 S.Ct. at 1512 . … Additionally, it is clear that the Indiana Supreme Court has not decided these claims in a manner “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law.”

Jaramillo v. State

803 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2004

In its decision, the supreme court clearly conveyed its view that the acceptance of a signed plea agreement form is not tantamount to entry of judgment on that plea. … offense, and to establish predicate offenses that would support a habitual substance offender finding. 4.

Mechanics Laundry & Supply, Inc. v. Wilder Oil Co.

596 N.E.2d 248 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1992

In the usual case, no public policy reason exists to preclude parties from establishing venue by a contractual provision. … The idea here is that the oath or affidavit should be made by a person who would qualify as a witness and whose testimony would be reliable. It should be noted that the oath or affidavit need not be made by a party.

In Re Fink

366 B.R. 870 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 15, 2007

Nonetheless, it has never established any guidelines that would assist the court in determining what constitutes an amendable informal proof of claim. In re Harper, 138 B.R. 229, 243 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1991). … They do not qualify as an informal proof of claim. Even if the court takes a somewhat broader approach to Ms. Fink’s filings they still fail to qualify as an informal claim. Ms.

Daffron v. Snyder

854 N.E.2d 52 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2006

Philadelphia Gas Works, 54 BR. 928, 938 (E.D.Pa.1985) ("Because the stipulation of settlement does not clearly and unambiguously refer to a waiver of a right to attorney's fees, the plaintiffs did not waive their right to … Tioga Pines Living Ctr., Inc., 622 N.E.2d 935, 946 (Ind.19983) ("[Tlo qualify as a prevailing party, ...

Fancil v. State

966 N.E.2d 700 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs 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 the law. Id. … Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

McClelland v. State ex rel. Speer

138 Ind. 321 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1894

S. 1881, p. 13, declaring its purpose and object in these words: “To the end that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated.5 ’ Counsel say, the first object named is that “justice be established … shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, priv•ileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens,” and that the power of taxation vested in the Legislature is limited and

Morphew v. Morphew

419 N.E.2d 770 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1981

establish that he provided more for the support of such child during the calendar year than the parent not having custody. … Clearly, the diagnosis of a muscle disease is outside the skill and knowledge of a lay witness. As Judge Thompson stated in Hurst v.

Grant v. State

585 N.E.2d 284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1992

After establishing a factual basis, the trial court accepted the plea agreement. Sentencing was delayed pursuant to the plea agreement. … Clearly the trial judge misstated the habitual offender statute’s applicability to Grant. Grant does not claim that, if he had known the correct possible penalty, he would have changed his decision.

Thomas Mack v. State of Indiana

23 N.E.3d 742 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2014

other things, we hold that, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, a lapse of at least “a few minutes” between a declarant’s perception of an event and his statement describing that event was too long to qualify … Likewise, Stewart’s statements regarding the light bulb are cumulative to, and insignificant in light of, Mack’s own clearly made statements on the audio recording.

Conway v. Indiana State Prison

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 2022

Unit Team Manager Schneider also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because “[i]t is not clearly established that failing to move an offender to a designated protective custody unit when the offender (1) is already … Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that “a defendant may not avoid trial on the grounds of qualified immunity” if there are genuine issues of fact regarding the elements of the deliberate-indifference