Case law

Lafayette Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

545 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1982

Bernard Crimmons must be active in the new company or someone highly qualified who An-heuser-Busch would approve. 62. … Designation of areas of primary responsibility have clearly been upheld under Section 1 of the Sher *1147 man Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 . Continental T. V., Inc. v.

Jones v. Griffith

688 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 25, 1988

Texas, the Court noted, had established a system for thorough state court review of the Commission’s orders. … Canterbury contains a lengthy and exceedingly thoughtful discussion of the doctrine of informed consent and clearly articulates the plaintiff’s position in this case—that lay witness testimony can competently establish a

Houser v. Kaufman

972 N.E.2d 927 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2012

The doctor had given the patient immunizations that the doctor knew repeatedly caused the patient to lose consciousness, but the doctor failed to monitor the patient for a sufficient amount of time before permitting him to … Stacy clearly made an argument based upon Martin and its progeny to the trial court and repeats that argument on appeal.

Marlett v. State

878 N.E.2d 860 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2007

Making schools free from violence or the fear of violence clearly is an important societal concern. … Furthermore, even if there is some evidence that Marlett is sexually aroused by knives and/or violence, that by itself does not establish that he is an SVP.

ARP II v. INDIANA STATE POLICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2022

As the Seventh Circuit has clarified, all state employees should know that they, and not their employers, are the proper defendants to Section 1983 claims: [A]ll public officials are presumed to know clearly established … Here there can be no doubt that every state's sovereign immunity from, and all state employees' personal exposure to, Section 1983 liability for constitutional torts [is] clearly established . . . .

Newbill v. State

884 N.E.2d 383 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 2008

Therefore, we find that read as a whole, the instructions properly informed the jury that it was to consider the testimony and evidence presented, and to judge that evidence in order to reach its conclusion of whether the State established … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Saunders v.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.M. and A.M. (Minor Children) and J.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2012

These allegations must be established by clear and convincing evidence. … We therefore cannot say the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous. 2.

Evans v. Murray

815 N.E.2d 216 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2004

In November 2002, Father filed an action to establish paternity of M.A.S. On January 8, 2003, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt M.A.S., and Father objected to Stepfather's petition. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and the cireumstances. In re A.C., 770 N.E.2d 947 , 951 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

Will Thomas v. State of Indiana

65 N.E.3d 1096 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2016

We review its rulings “for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects … Moreover, both this Court and the Indiana Supreme Court have held that dog sniffs are sufficient to establish probable cause. State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (Ind. 2010) (citing Neuhoff v.

Williams v. State

690 N.E.2d 162 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1997

However, the court clearly explored, with an unfavorable result, the character and condition of the defendant. … On appeal, Williams contends that these opinions were speculative and that neither Fabian nor Smiley was qualified as an expert to offer such an opinion. Williams does not cite any Rule or other authority.

Medical Assurance Co. v. Weinberger

973 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2013

Weinberger established various legal entities through which he practiced, including Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C. … The Medical Malpractice Act establishes a comprehensive scheme addressing medical malpractice actions.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower Transit, Inc.

204 F.R.D. 138 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2001

He also represents to the court that local counsel (formerly *148 with the Johnson Smith law firm) are well qualified and experienced and these representations are unchallenged. … The interest rate shall be established on the date the interest period begins and shall be at least equal to the average yield or equivalent coupon issue yield on 91-day, 13-week Treasury bills as established in the weekly

Home on the Range v. AT & T Corp.

386 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2005

For the reasons stated below, AT & T’s motion is granted with respect to the rights of way established under the 1862 Pacific Railroad Act and the 1864 Northern Pacific Act, and denied with respect to the right of way established … This qualified inclusion within the operation of the 1875 Act of homestead and similar claims beyond the reach of appropriation indicates that Congress did not intend to invoke the full power of appropriation under the 1875

Orr v. Sevier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2019

Orr asserts that Warden Sevier “blindly relied upon inaccurate and false medical records that were clearly harming Orr.” (ECF 1 at 5.) … “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

Church of the American Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. City of Gary

219 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2002

Finally, the dissenters chide the majority’s order of dismissal as “clearly dis-serving] the public interest.” … Pap’s subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because Pap’s had sold the real property upon which the establishment was located, indeed the establishment now housed a comedy club.

Ittenbach v. Thomas

48 Ind. App. 420 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1911

In this instruction the court undertook to inform the jury what facts appellee was required to establish in order to entitle her to a verdict. … Such an instruction amounts to a direction to the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiff, if the facts enumerated therein are established by the evidence, and that the facts-so enumerated are sufficient, if established

In Re the Guardianship of John T. Aldrich, an Adult, Brock L. Aldrich v. Sandra Aldrich (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2018

[12] Brock argues: (1) the trial court erred by establishing a guardianship when a valid power of attorney (POA2) already existed; or (2) if the trial court did not err in establishing the guardianship … There is also a dispute as to whether Brock qualifies as an attorney in fact pursuant to POA2 because that document requires two physicians to certify in writing that John is incapacitated before Brock’s powers

Cua v. Ramos

433 N.E.2d 745 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1982

His decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Smith v. Midwest Insurance Co., (1972) Ind.App., 289 N.E.2d 788 . … The defendants by stipulation at the pretrial conference admitted two of the paragraphs but qualified their admission of three others, and the only inconvenience which Cua asserts in the failure of the court to strike the

HORNADAY-ALBERTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2026

Jan. 28, 2011) (finding that HUD and the receiver appointed to possess a PHA were immune from suit under § 1437d(j)(3)(H)); Walker, 2011 WL 2637328, at *3 (granting HUD's motion to dismiss because of the sovereign immunity … Even if these actions were only "shunning" and "ostracism," those things may qualify as an adverse action if they involve "material harm." Parkins v.

Flynn v. State

702 N.E.2d 741 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1998

Also, the party offering the recording must establish that the witness has no present recollection of the events to be proven in order for the writing to be admitted. Id. … Flynn withdrew his request and clearly indicated he did not want to change counsel. We do not see what more the trial court could have done.