Case law

Barker v. State

440 N.E.2d 664 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1982

This fact clearly distinguishes this case from those cases in which reference is made to a defendant’s prior conviction or jail sentence. If the jury actually heard and understood Mrs. … The second paragraph serves to further qualify and make conditional the jury’s mandate from Instruction No. 10. We find that Instruction No. 10 is within the scope of our holding in Taylor .

Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, and Madison City Board of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2019

is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … the same factors and circumstances and reached a different decision. 6 6 Intervenors argue that White Barn’s application for a conditional use permit should have been denied because it qualified

Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. Cottingham

115 Ind. 64 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1886

recognize, but as clearly establish, a difference between aid to railway companies by municipalities by way of taking stock, and by way of donations. … To hold otherwise would be to abolish all distinction between an appropriation by way of donation and by way of taking stock, which is so clearly established and recognized by our statutes and the cases, and to hold that,

GIBSON v. INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2020

Gibson responds that the damages she seeks will not necessarily be paid by the state, so sovereign immunity does not apply. Dkt. 118 at 11–14. … Gibson cannot establish the third element—causation, dkt. 101 at 19– 21. ISPD contends that Ms.

Omans v. State

412 N.E.2d 305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1980

Clearly Debbie was reluctant to express the incident in all its sordid details. In fact she admitted that she was embarrassed about testifying. … Although she had a limited sexual vocabulary Mary clearly established what happened to her. To hold otherwise would involve reweighing the evidence.

Barrett v. Sipp

50 Ind. App. 304 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1912

It is true that in the case quoted from, the attack on the complaint was first made by assignment of error in that court, but Judge Mitchell in the opinion does not limit or qualify his words quoted to an attack on the complaint … Dollman, supra, said: ‘ ‘ The general rule in regard to the application of payments seems to be well established, that the payor and debtor owing two or more debts to the same creditor or payee, may direct the application

MARTIN v. VAUGHN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2023

Alternatively, Sergeant Vaughn asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Martin's excessive force claims. Id. at 11-14. Sergeant Vaughn also contends that summary judgment is appropriate on Mr. … Martin's Eighth Amendment claim, the Court need not address whether he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. See dkt. 41 at 11-14.

Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Champion

9 Ind. App. 510 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1894

When the facts which he was required to prove were established, they overcame the presumptions in favor of appellant. It is next insisted that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction: “11. … If the testimony sought to be elicited by the witness was competent, his previous examination discloses that he was qualified to testify on the subject.

Shepherd v. ASI, Ltd.

295 F.R.D. 289 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2013

B], noting that it fulfills the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) by clearly and concisely setting forth: (1) the nature of the action, (2) the definition of the class certified, (3) the class claims and issues, (4) that a … In his first motion to certify class, Plaintiff listed 233 employees as qualifying for relief.

Angela Brewer, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rickey A. Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc. d/b/a PETERBILT MOTORS CO.

98 N.E.3d 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2018

The manner of use required to establish "reasonably expectable use" under the circumstances of each case is a matter peculiarly within the province of a fact-finder. … Clearly, under Indiana Code Section 34-20-2-2, a product may be designed in such a way that it is unreasonably unsafe and defective for the product's intended or expected use. See Hoffman v. E.W.

Robert E. Redington v. State of Indiana

992 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2013

Put another way, there is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate. … Mayer’s ‘concerns’ were based on Redington’s ‘violent or emotionally unstable conduct,’ the State clearly failed to establish by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Redington is ‘dangerous’ as defined” by Ind.Code § 35-47

Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc.

962 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 1997

unsolicited facsimile advertisements since [December 20, 1992], The Forman court held that the proposed class definition failed to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements because each potential plaintiff, in order to qualify … In so holding, the Court noted: if that evasion were successful, every merchant who desires to broadcast advertising leaflets in the streets need only append a civil appeal, or a moral platitude, to achieve immunity from

Continental Training Services, Inc. v. Cavazos

709 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 1989

Although it is clearly reasonable to make certain determinations of eligibility outside of the procedural framework established in section 1094(c)(1)(D), see, e.g., Beth Rochel Seminary v. Bennett, 825 F.2d 478 (D.C. … Taken in *1452 context, these facts clearly indicate that the Whitehead Decision injured Superior’s reputation.

Hill v. Rhinehart

45 N.E.3d 427 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

Ryan suspected Hill to' be suffering from Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT), which is a rare “immune mediated response to the presence of the Heparin antigen in. the body.” (Tr. p. 639). … Therefore, to receive a multi-cap recovery under the Medical Malpractice Act, Hill was required to establish that Drs.

De Juna Don Sho Cox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2020

Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2020, 10:13 am court except for the purpose of establishing … vehicle’s passenger could see the handgun, was in the best position to access the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-560 | August 24, 2020 Page 7 of 8  gun, and no evidence clearly

Orth v. Orth

145 Ind. 184 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1895

Very clearly, we think, it does not. … If we are correct in our conclusions that the letter raises no trust, and does not limit or qualify the absolute devise and bequest to Mrs.

Local 1963 of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Madison County, Indiana, Madison County Assessor, and Madison County Recorder

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2013

Indiana Code § 5-4-1-1 UAW further claims that the language of Section 1 establishes that deputies are employees of the County. … This court found that “[i]t is elementary that 13 there can be no deputy without there first being a principal; the principal being the duly elected, qualified and acting official

U.S. Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Indiana Department of Transportation

714 N.E.2d 1244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1999

Outdoor “bears the burden of establishing its invalidity.” Id. … In establishing roadside areas to be governed by the applicable sign regulations, Ind.

Monika Schmidt v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2020

Schmidt, who qualified as an insured under her friend’s policy, demanded the underinsured motorist coverage limits from Allstate. … Clearly, a relationship exists between an insurer and its insured because they are in privity of contract.

Foman v. Moss

681 N.E.2d 1113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1997

We agree that the burden of proof was on the devisees to establish Foman's incompetency. Therefore, Foman is appealing a general judgment. … It is obvious that the trial court has not qualified as the guardian under the aforesaid statute and should not be attempting to substitute its will over the judgment of the duly appointed and qualified guardian.