Case law

Campbell v. Hall

624 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 17, 2009

In order to qualify for the bona fide error defense, a defendant must make three showings under § 1692k(c): (1) the presumed FDCPA violation was not intentional; (2) the presumed FDCPA violation resulted from a bona fide … Here, Defendant’s March 6, 2006, debt collection letter clearly provides a breakdown of the amounts being collected.

Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

42 N.E.3d 1043 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 10, 2015

RAC West and RAC Texas were not qualified to do business in Indiana, did not have any employees in Indiana, and did not own or use any of their capital, plant, or other property in Indiana. … The tribunal upheld the assessment before even examining the taxpayer’s study because the evidence clearly established that the transactions between the retailer and its subsidiary lacked any valid

Tindell v. EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH SCHOOL CORP.

805 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2011

The CCC also completed a functional behavior assessment, established a behavior intervention plan, and drafted instructional goals and objectives for Chris. (R. at 534-43). … Accordingly, in light of all of these facts knowledge of which Plaintiffs clearly possessed, we cannot find that Ms.

Maxon Corp. v. Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc.

497 N.E.2d 570 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1986

(S.D.Ind.1983) 568 F.Supp. 651, 655 , the court stated: "A prior course of dealing may be used to 'give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify terms of an agreement.' § 1-205(8). … An exchange of identical forms on prior occasions does not, of itself, establish a common basis of understanding. In Lockheed Electronics Co., Inc. v.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.J. R., Mother, J.F., Father and M.R., Minor Child, B.J.R. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2017

Mother, however, qualified her own answer. … It was not clearly erroneous for the juvenile court to find that the only certain date, was the earliest release date.

Heminger v. Police Com'n of City of Fort Wayne

161 Ind. App. 72 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1974

Such classification applies to members of the police departments in cities qualifying under IC 1971, 19-1-20-1, supra, and, under the provisions of IC 1971, 19-1-20-4, supra, is a factor initially comprising 40% of the rating … The legislation there in issue provided for the establishment by referendum of a merit plan for police and fire departments in certain cities.

Sharp v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners

54 Ind. App. 182 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1912

appellant’s motion for a new trial; (3) that the judgment appealed from is not fairly sustained by the evidence; (4) that the decision of the court is not fairly sustained by the evidence; (5) that the judgment appealed from is clearly … The effect of the remaining contention of appellants as we gather it from the propositions announced in their brief is: (1) That the burden of proof was upon appellee, and before it could recover it must establish the allegations

Manns v. Skolnik

666 N.E.2d 1236 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 1996

Manns argues that Easterday clearly knew of the risk and accepted it. … The statute is clearly limited to civil suits filed by private individuals.

Allen v. City of Carmel

830 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 1993

The rank of Major qualified as an “upper level policy making position” under Ind. … Svetanoff, 878 F.2d 186 (7th Cir.1989) (court reporter had no property interest in her job because Indiana statute established that she was employee at will).

MAXWELL v. STOUT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2023

On August 3, 2023, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on qualified immunity grounds and entered final judgment. Dkt. 34, 35. Two weeks later, Mr. … Maxwell's responsibility to manage his case and "is well established that carelessness or a lack of due care on the part of a litigant . . . does not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)." McLaughlin v.

Brandon Thomas Woody v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2017

There was nothing formal about the questioning, and Thornburg’s condition was clearly emergent. … Woody has wholly failed to establish that this low bar was not met where VanderReyden’s testimony established his extensive experience with firearms.

In the Adoption of K.H., D.R. v. M.M. and C.M.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2020

The trial court’s findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. E.B.F., 93 N.E.3d at 762. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-337 | July 29, 2020 Page 14 of 18  “unfit” as “[u]nsuitable; not adapted or qualified for a particular use or service” or “[m]orally

Reginald Lee Robinson v. State of Indiana

53 N.E.3d 1236 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2016

Little’s opinion does not qualify as credible and contends his convictions must be reversed. [14] The State maintains that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s decision and that Dr. … Id. [17] In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court has noted that Indiana precedent has clearly established that unanimous expert testimony alone is' not determinative where there is conflicting lay opinion testimony or demeanor

Mitchell v. State

726 N.E.2d 1228 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2000

Therefore, it clearly isn't at issue. It simply isn't. Record at 928. … To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).

Jacob T. McDaniel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2017

Additionally, although both crimes required proof of serious bodily injury, the evidence at trial established that Nice sustained multiple injuries that qualified as serious bodily injury, specifically loss … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Eberle, 942 N.E.2d at 861.

PAYNE v. HOMERIVER GROUP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2025

This very limited information is not enough for the Court to determine whether Payne qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Her motion (Dkt. 2) is therefore denied, but Ms. … These Motions identify no basis for emergency relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, nor do they establish this Court's jurisdiction.

Cross v. Cross

891 N.E.2d 635 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2008

An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and eir-cumstances before the court, including any reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. … Eligibility is based on need: SSI is paid to families of disabled children qualifying under the Act to ensure that the recipient’s needs are met at a subsistence level.

In re the Paternity of Makayla Lauren Pickett, Gregg Roberts v. Shonda Pickett

44 N.E.3d 756 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2015

Mother filed a petition to establish Father’s paternity and for child support. … As for any findings that have been made, they will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous.

Lafayette, Muncie, & Bloomington Rail Road v. Geiger

34 Ind. 185 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1870

To bring its validity within the control of the courts, it must be clearly subversive of the constitution.” Black, C. J,, in Sharpeless v. The Mayor of Philadelphia, 21 Penn. … The principle involved in the case under consideration is clearly distinguishable from that decided in the Maize case.

Michael Phelps v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2012

The minister agreed that Phelps did not qualify for his program. … Phelps did not establish a nexus between his mental health issues and the shooting of Jackson.