Case law

Scampmorte v. SCAMPMORTE, ADMR.

133 Ind. App. 276 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1962

Shearer, you are trying to establish a will by this man, now why do you want to impeach him? “MR. … The burden was upon the appellant to establish and the court to determine that fact.

A.J. v. Logansport State Hospital

956 N.E.2d 96 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2011

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … s argument adds a qualifier that does not appear in Indiana Code Section 12-26-2-5, and therefore we decline to address it. .

McCloud-Smith v. Sormaz

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 2023

1915A, I 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 … The probable cause affidavit clearly establishes there was probable cause to arrest McCloud-Smith for at least one (and, in reality, many) of the charged crimes.

Pate v. Tait

1 Ind. L. Rep. 83 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1881

be difficult for any cause to procure the attendance of such judge, to prevent delay, the court may appoint any competent attorney of this State, in good standing, to act as judge, who, if he consent to serve, shall be qualified … It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the plea of the statutory limitations is clearly established, and that there is no proof showing or affording ground for an inference of concealment by the defendant of the cause

Kochert v. Greater Lafayette Health Services, Inc.

372 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 2004

The evidence in this case establishes clearly that *519 the decision to consolidate the OB unit at SEMC with the unit at HH was made unilaterally by the GLHS without any input from AA. … Furthermore, even if this Court were to revisit this claim, it is clearly without merit. VI.

LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin

730 N.E.2d 1251 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2000

agency action 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 … First, the structure of the Ethics Code is clearly pointed at sanctioning state employees who violate the Ethics Code and not conferring benefits on third parties arguably injured by a state employee’s violation

J.B. Whitelow, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2017

[14] Whitelow appears to argue that the DNA samples taken from the shoe and pistol did not qualify for inclusion in the CODIS database, and that they were therefore inadmissible. … It does not establish that Berry’s testimony was knowingly false. 2.

Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Anthony Trojnar

983 N.E.2d 648 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2013

The “extenuating circumstances” regarding refunds in the “Course Refund Policy” does not contain similar qualifying language. 17  It was only through the presentation … of evidence at the small claims trial and motion to correct errors hearing that established Defendant’s Exhibit A governed the relationship between the parties.

Roman Lee Jones v. Sharon Hawk

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2024

immunity. 5 The relevant factors included the impact that accommodating the speech would have on prison officials and inmates and the availability of alternative means for the prisoner to express his complaints. … 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.

Midwest Beverage Co. v. Gates

61 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 1945

The section further provides that the permits shall be renewed annually upon the payment of an annual fee and the giving of bond for as long as the permittee shall be qualified, and that the commission shall not deny or renew … It long has been settled and is now firmly established that the state has the absolute right to regulate or prohibit traffic in intoxicating liquor and that this right stems from the power of the state to regulate the health

Jeffery Thomas Maxwell v. Shirley Sue Maxwell (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2018

Husband clearly argued for the application of a coverture formula and did not waive that issue. … Husband argues that Wife did not establish a need for the van because the parties have transported D.M. for years without the use of a handicapped accessible vehicle.

Staten v. State

946 N.E.2d 80 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2011

Here, the record clearly demonstrates that Staten disobeyed the posted stop sign. … Here, Staten's intoxication clearly resulted in unsafe driving practices.

Freeman v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021

There are three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) suits directly against the State based on a cause of action where Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity from suit; (2) suits directly against the State … As such, Commissioner Carter and Warden Hyatte are entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Moreover, Mr. Freeman doesn’t assert any of the exceptions to the immunity under the Act.

In Re the Guardianship of Ruth Carter, an Incompetent Adult, Colleen F. Batt v. Marsha K. Moore

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2014

Prior to the auction, Moore filed a petition on October 1, 2012, to establish a guardianship over Carter. … However, the statute clearly contemplates that a guardianship may be established in place of a valid power of attorney if certain conditions are met. See Ind.

JACKSON v. BARRETT & STOCKELY MANAGEMENT, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 2023

Cook County, 833 F.3d 728, 743 (7th Cir. 2016) (finding that a court may take judicial notice of an action of other courts or the contents of filings in other courts to establish the fact of such litigation and related … The Anti-Injunction Act is "a clearcut prohibition" against enjoining state court actions "qualified only by specifically defined exceptions," which "should not be enlarged by loose statutory construction."

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.L. (Minor Child) and J.R. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2019

Kohli has been qualified as an expert in the area of Clinical Psychology. 10. … Moreover, the parents in J.R. clearly objected to the trial court’s continuance of the hearing outside the sixty-day time limit of the applicable statute.

International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Dawson International Inc.

216 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2002

Thus, the fact that Dawson has not actually sold an allegedly infringing product in Indiana, (Cameron Aff. ¶¶ 5-7), would not immunize it from service under Indiana law. … The defendant has the burden of establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir.1986).

Brookshire v. Elkhart City Police

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2021

The court needn’t address whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. … Brookshire hasn’t shown that they violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. See Green v.

Wedmore v. State

237 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1957

Appellant asserts that the trial court caused him to be held by recognizance bond beyond three terms of court in violation of Acts 1905, ch. 169, §220, p. 584, being §9-1403, Burns’ 1956 Replacement, by “failing to appoint and qualify … Procedural methods and safeguards should be established and *221 clearly pointed out.

Davis v. B & S, INC.

38 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1998

or exceeds the minimum wage level. § 203(m) also requires an employer to satisfy two other conditions to qualify for the tip credit: The [tip credit] shall not apply with respect to any tipped employee unless such employee … It is well established that an individual can be considered an “employer” under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d) (“ ‘Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an