Case law

Jones v. B & J Rocket America, Inc.

148 F. Supp. 3d 755 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 1, 2015

As to the second prong, there is quite clearly a genuine issue of fact regarding Jones’ performance. … B & J states that it "does not admit or concede that the Plaintiff is a qualified individual for purposes of the ADA.

Horton v. State

936 N.E.2d 1277 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2010

Our supreme court held the defendant's knowledge of the victim's pregnancy was not necessary for it to qualify as an aggravating cireumstance. Id. at 1120 . … This contrasts with the case before us, in which evidence clearly established Horton's daily sexual molestation of R.M. over a period of at least six months. Serino also cited Haycraft v.

Gamble v. State

831 N.E.2d 178 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2005

Our supreme court has recently considered how Crawford affects the admissibility of statements that qualify as excited utterances under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(2). Hammon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 444, 449-450 (2005). … State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind.2001) ("Errors in the giving or refusing of instructions are harmless *187 where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.").

Marcus A. Minor, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2025

And he argues that all of the errors, taken together, cumulatively establish reversible error. … “Because this is a factual determination, it is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.” Id.

Randle v. Pearson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 27, 2025

“[I]t does not generally establish a right to a habitable home.” Id., at *2 (cleaned up). … Moreover, it does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which requires specific facts, set forth in an affidavit or a verified complaint, that clearly show immediate and irreparable injury, loss

Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Brownsburg Station Partners LLC

997 N.E.2d 1093 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2013

But the fact that the parties disagree over the meaning of the contract does not, in and of itself, establish an ambiguity. Everett Cash Mut. Ins. Co. v. … The seventy percent rate clearly applies to the percentage of tenants, not to the percentage of gross leasable area.

In Re GY

904 N.E.2d 1257 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2009

But Fishel qualified her recommendation. She testified that “looking out for [G.Y.] … In my judgment, the assessment of these factors by the trial court is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should be affirmed.

Stephen Levendoski, Karen Levendoski, and Kathleen (Jensema) Gross v. Stanley Stevens (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2019

We cannot say that it was clearly erroneous for the trial court to include such facts. … As such, they argue that their partition petition does not qualify as a “claim” under the terms of the Agreement because the request to partition and sell the property was not related to Sarah’s estate.

Wastewater One, LLC v. Floyd County Board of Zoning Appeals

947 N.E.2d 1040 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2011

With respect to finding No. 2 of the BZA, after a review of the transcript of the hearing it is clear that such finding is clearly erroneous in that the record lacks any facts to support the finding that expansion of the … provides that a court may provide relief only if the agency action is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Mark C. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2019

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Washington v. State, 840 N.E.2d 873, 879 (Ind. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-760 | December 31, 2019 Page 12 of 14  contends that the 2002 felony convictions do not qualify under the habitual offender statute

Hogle v. Reliance Manufacturing Company

113 Ind. App. 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1943

The rule is well established that under such circumstances the issuance and service of summons is waived. In the case of Louisville, New Albany and Chicago R. W. Co. v. … The case before us clearly comes within the rule that where an amendment to a complaint sets up no new matter or claim, but merely amplifies and restates with more certainty, or in a different form, the cause of action set

CAMM v. CLEMONS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 2021

He contends that it is well established "police officers have no duty to investigate extenuating circumstances or search for exculpatory evidence once probable cause has been established via the accusation of a credible … or from individuals who may be qualified but were not otherwise properly designated.

Davis v. State

418 N.E.2d 256 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1981

Thus, a trial court's ruling disallowing the withdrawal of a plea will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be established that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Id. … IC 35-5-6-2 clearly requires that any recommendation made by the prosecutor on a felony charge must be in writing.

Jones v. Womacks

852 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2006

However, Section 3.2 clearly does not call for a traditional election or referendum procedure by ballot. … This would appear to have placed upon the City the burden to establish the existence of these primary determinants.

Coleman v. State

741 N.E.2d 697 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2000

Applying the two-part IAC test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the U.S. … Rather, it enters into the determination of whether the likelihood of a different outcome qualifies as prejudice in the Strickland sense. Id.

Rodenbeck v. Marathon Petroleum Co.

742 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 19, 1990

This Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no oral promises or other representations or understandings inducing its execution or qualifying its terms. … Kinzie asserts that the Releases “cancel only particular prior agreements that are clearly specified, and the release language clearly pertains only to claims arising out of the cancelled agreements.”

Hancock v. Maynard

72 Ind. App. 661 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1920

Hancock qualified as the executor of the said will of Martha J. Maynard, deceased. Both estates are still pending settlement in the Madison Circuit Court, and the said Alvis F. … Maynard, we must keep in mind some well-established principles. 3.

Hunt Paving Co. v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 740 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 1992

by Rule 56(e) to establish a genuine issue of fact. … Although Hunt Paving has not established any “contact” with the rest of the MBE/WBE Program, it sought to establish other injuries from the Program.

First National Bank of New Castle v. Acra

462 N.E.2d 1345 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 1984

We stated: The tort of fraud, if proven, would clearly constitute an invasion of a legal right. … The trial court conditioned its admission on the requirement that Acra would later establish the relevancy and materiality of the deposition.

Lopez v. The People

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2020

The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements. … Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.”).