Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersIN

9,074 results

1.93s

  • PEDEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

    District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 6, 2024

    American Access has clearly articulated in their motion that their intervention is necessary as there is a dispute of fact whether Defendant Jose Pichardo Lopez qualifies as insured under American Access's policies. … Therefore, the proponent of the stay has the burden of clearly establishing the need for the Court to grant the motion. Landis at 255.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Baker v. State

    190 Ind. 385 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1921

    The. same question was asked other doctors who had qualified as expert witnesses. … The adjudicated cases all agree in holding that a careful scrutiny should always be given evidence offered to establish the defense of insanity in criminal prosecutions.” In Butler v.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Lockhart v. United States

    961 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 1997

    As the Government admits in its motion, the FTCA represents a limited waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit permitting a district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over claims for money damages based … An exception to this rule, not applicable here, exists when the facts required to establish jurisdiction are coextensive with those necessary to prevail on the merits. Peckmann v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Bonzani v. Goshen Health System Inc

    District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2022

    Pleading Standards and Immunity. … for immunity under the HCQIA.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • DASKALAKIS v. CP INDY DT, LLC D/B/A HYATT REGENCY INDIANAPOLIS

    District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 30, 2025

    The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an 'in house' report as work product. . . . … A more or less routine investigation of a possibly resistable claim is not sufficient to immunize an investigative report developed in the ordinary course of business. . . .

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • McNay v. Town of Lowell

    41 Ind. App. 627 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 1908

    Appellee, an incorporated town, sued appellant to recover money that appellant had received from the town for coal furnished and labor performed while appellant was a duly qualified and acting member of the board of trustees … Courts' are but human, and we are prone to let our sympathy for the one who, with honest motives, has subjected himself to heavy pecuniary loss, lead us to relax the rigors of established legal principles.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Rensing v. Indiana State University Board of Trustees

    437 N.E.2d 78 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1982

    As noted above, the evidence in the cáse at bar clearly demonstrates that the benefits received by Rensing were conditioned upon his athletic ability and team participation. … This award may be renewed each year for a total of four years as long as you are academically qualified and abide by acceptable conduct standards.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • United States v. Conservation Chemical Co. of Illinois

    733 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 6, 1989

    Of course, failure to submit a plan at all by a mandatory deadline is clearly a violation. … Although some of the deficiencies listed are clearly de minimis {see e.g., # 25 “This subsection should be separate from the tank storage section or the section should be retitled.”), other deficiencies are just as clearly

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Amer. Bridge Co. v. Rev. Bd., Emp. SEC. Div.

    121 Ind. App. 576 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1951

    All of the foregoing cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … The unemployment compensation reserves established thereunder should be used for the payment of benefits to those who come within the objective of the Act.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Tocarra L. Woodson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

    Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2017

    not be Dec 20 2017, 10:58 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … Woodson does not hold a license to be a registered nurse and does not have a degree qualifying her to be a registered nurse.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Yancey v. Hyde

    121 Ind. 20 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1889

    Perhaps the principle has never been more clearly stated than by the great constitutional lawyer whose statements, as Emerson says,“ lay in daylight.” … The conclusion dcducible from these authorities is, so far as it is here necessary to ascertain it, that where the Legislature has power to establish a scientific department, or to establish any public institution, it has

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • Garau Germano, P.C., and Faith Fenner v. Stephen W. Robertson

    Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2019

    “‘The basis of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is a justiciable controversy or question, which is clearly defined and affects the legal right, the legal status, or the legal relationship … Not only has she not yet entered into a qualifying settlement agreement, even if she had, her ability to receive damages from the PCF is far from established.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Team Scandia, Inc. v. Greco

    6 F. Supp. 2d 795 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 19, 1998

    However, it has long been established that an agreement to a “final,” “binding,” and “non-appealable” arbitration award does not prohibit appeals based upon the arbitrator’s abuse of authority oh bias. Dean v. … Indeed, the arbitrator clearly had authority to asséss actual dainages stemming from Seandia’s breach of contract.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • F. John Rogers, as Personal Representative of Paul Michalik, and R. David Boyer, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Jerry Lee Chambers v. Angela Martin and Brian Paul Brothers

    63 N.E.3d 316 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2016

    But this contention fails to recognize established premises liability principles. … Ultimately, this Court determined that social guests qualify as invitees, so a landowner must exercise reasonable care for their protection. Id. at 643.

    Cited 100 timesPublished
  • Shropshire v. Duckworth

    654 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 1987

    Lash, 682 F.2d 648 (7th Cir.1982), clearly ruled that the Warden of the Indiana State Prison was immune from damage claims in his official capacity under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. … The procedures here established meet the minimum requirements of due process as established in Hewitt v. Helms.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Z.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services

    933 N.E.2d 494 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

    Consequently, Ordower, Duran, and Martinez did not qualify as de facto custodians when DCS took custody of C.G. … Dalton testified that if she determines that she is not qualified to work with C.G. on sexual abuse issues, she will refer C.G. to another therapist.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co. v. Garcia

    227 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 2017

    .”); DE 23-12 (“The cause of the contamination is clearly the dry cleaning operations in which [the dry cleaners’ owners] engaged for many years ...”). … The nature of the claim, not the merit, establishes the insurer’s duty to defend. Trisler, 575 N.E.2d at 1023 . III.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Grimes v. Smith

    585 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 7, 1984

    As to the effects of the conspiracy: lay and expert testimony established a reasonable probability that many people, enough to swing the election to Graddick, voted for John Grimes (whose name appeared before Douglas Grimes … And assisted by testimony of the plaintiffs’ well-qualified expert witness, Dr.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Scott A. Steffey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

    Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2020

    Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 13 2020, 1:38 pm court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs “when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Lytle v. Ford Motor Co.

    814 N.E.2d 301 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2004

    we first note the provisions of Indiana Evidence Rule 702; ' 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 … Such an abuse occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances of the case, or if it misinterprets the law. Vernon v.

    Cited 22 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.