Case law

Richardson's RV, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

112 N.E.3d 192 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2018

Code § 33-26-1-1 (2004)) (establishing the Indiana Tax Court); July 18, 1986, Order Adopting Rules for the Indiana Tax Court (found in volume 494–496 of Ind. … Cases ed. of N.E.2d at XXXIV) (adopting Rule 10’s “clearly erroneous” standard).

Elkhart County Assessor v. E R Carpenter Company, Inc.

Indiana Tax Court · Jan 12, 2021

the Court that the Indiana Board’s final determination in this matter is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Tax Court Rule 1 (incorporating the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure unless they are clearly inconsistent with the Tax Court Rules); Ind.

Steven Jackson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2012

The Court further finds that pursuant to Section 5, “The Petitioner 5  shall be heard”, and “the Petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief”. … The appellate court must accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact and may reverse only if the findings are clearly erroneous.

Jonathan L. Hummel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

The trial court noted that Hummel had indicated that he had completed educational and rehabilitative programs that qualified for purposeful incarceration. … Thus, pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Id.

Debra L. Myer v. Michael A. Myer (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2017

The court entered a judgment of $25,480 in favor of Debra and against Michael to effectuate its division of the marital property and ordered the parties’ attorneys to prepare a qualified domestic relations … 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.

MDM INVESTMENTS v. City of Carmel

740 N.E.2d 929 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2000

We will reverse only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id. I. … The legislature could have qualified this statement by requiring that the complaint serve as notice for only the appropriation proceedings and not the valuation proceedings; the legislature did not.

David A Gertz v. Porter County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2025

At no point does Gertz clearly articulate to the Court an alternative true tax value that the Board should have selected or, more importantly, show how the record evidence establishes that value. … Gertz has not presented and explained probative evidence establishing the property’s market value-in-use.

Kleven v. St. Joseph County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2022

More recently, the Indiana legislature enacted a law providing immunity for a political subdivision, and their employees from liability for establishing, developing, implementing, maintaining, operating, and providing 911 … The court held that it did, and the broad immunity of §34-13-3-3(a)(19) was precluded in cases where the plaintiff could establish willful or wanton misconduct. Id. at 1272.

Holloway v. Thompson

112 Ind. App. 229 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1942

Clark to sell the cemetery lots, prepared literature for their use and established an office for them to use under the name of Sutherland Park Sales Company. … Because the circumstances clearly disclosed that the sales were for investment and promotion that court held that securities were being issued under a New York statute giving the Attorney General the right?

Stephen W. Peele v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2020

order the department to remove all information regarding the person from the public portal of the sex and violent offender registry Internet web site established … [10] The plain language of Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22(d) clearly confers subject matter jurisdiction upon the circuit or superior court in the county in which the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion

Pruitt v. State

903 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2009

He contends that in light of this latter test, the PC court's findings are "clearly erroneous," (Br. of Pet. … "The critical inquiry is whether the findings adopted by the court are clearly erroneous." Id. (citing Woods v.

Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas

794 N.E.2d 1152 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2003

See id. at 907 (significant connection test inapplicable if another state qualifies as a "home state"). Without jurisdiction, Mexico had no authority to modify the Texas divorce decree. … Such a "temporary absence" may not count toward the six-month period to establish Louisiana as the "home state." See Ortman v. Ortman, 670 N.E.2d 1317, 1321 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

Ragan v. JEFFBOAT, LLC

149 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 18, 2001

Jeffboat cites Maintenance Manager Hardison’s affidavit apparently to establish the authenticity of Exhibit 3 as the Mechanic Job Description. But Mr. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, Mr.

Pruitt v. State

166 Ind. App. 67 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1975

This evidence is clearly sufficient to uphold a conviction for theft. … On the other hand, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not establish “aiding.” Guetling v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 718 , 153 N.E. 765 .

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.

WEST

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2026

regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The Supreme Court has stated that "the factors necessary to establish a Bivens violation will vary with the constitutional provision at issue." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S 662, 676 (2009). From the outset, Ms.

Wainwright Trust Co. v. Kinder

69 Ind. App. 88 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1918

changing his will and naming another executor, so that he would be sure Martha was taken care of; that he thereafter made such change, and named him as such executor, but he moved away before the decedent died and did not qualify … Such cases emphasize the idea that there can be no implied contract unless the evidence clearly shows an intention on the part of the one for whom the services were rendered to pay for the same, and. the claimant rendered

Rimert v. Mortell

680 N.E.2d 867 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1997

it is insured by a policy of malpractice liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate, I.C. 27-12-4-1, and pays an annual surcharge, I.C. 27-12-5-1, the provider is “qualified … Desai’s liability as established.

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.

GODFREY

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

When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Lake County, 33 F.4th 960, 966 (7th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a disability-based equal protection challenge to pension-plan offerings “qualifies . . . for rational basis review”); Mullins v.