Case law

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Pickett

903 N.E.2d 171 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2009

The twenty-eight findings and conclusions within the court's decision explain why Pickett qualifies for Medicaid disability. IFSSA appeals. … Thus, an agency's decision may be vacated if the evidence, viewed in the aggregate, demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the agency are clearly erroneous. Partlow v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs.

Schlabach v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

469 F. Supp. 304 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 1978

Mishkin more clearly articulates the basis for his opinion that the Plaintiff is now, and has been since January, 1975, totally disabled. … and remanded with directions to conduct a new hearing and enter fresh findings on the issue of disability and the actual availability of jobs in the national economy for which this Plaintiff is physically and emotionally qualified

WOODS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2026

This argument furthered Woods's trial strategy of establishing reasonable doubt. … Woods has failed to show that the state court's decision in this regard was an unreasonable application of clearly established law. He is not entitled to relief. C.

Smith v. Johnston

711 N.E.2d 1259 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 27, 1999

Where such a breakdown is established, Rule 60 is met and a default judgment must be set aside. Whittaker v. Dail, 584 N.E.2d 1084, 1087 (Ind.1992). … We do not agree that the failure of Smith to read his mail amounts to a breakdown in communication sufficient to qualify as excusable neglect under Trial Rule 60(B)(1).

Pluard Ex Rel. Pluard v. Patients Compensation Fund

705 N.E.2d 1035 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1999

Health care providers, who must make up the medical review panel . . . are no more qualified as experts on such matters than the average juror." 465 N.E.2d at 740 . … We find that the affidavit does not establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Michael Anthony Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2017

We will reverse a trial court’s decision to admit evidence only if the court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Thornton v. … Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1136 | November 2, 2017 Page 9 of 13  1. 911 Call [13] It is undisputed that Lorenzo’s statements in the 911 call qualify

Whitesides v. Hunt

97 Ind. 191 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1884

Berry, supra, the court very clearly defines the line which separates the two classes of contracts, the legal from the illegal. … Still this rebutting evidence clearly tends to show that the intention not to deliver the wheat, at the maturity of the contract, was not mutual.

Tucker v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners

163 Ind. 403 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 24, 1904

We hold that such a payment of money comes clearly within the terms of the bond, and within the spirit of the law requiring such bonds to be given.” Again, in Armington v. … rule that contract rights acquired under an interpretation of the law made by th§ Supreme Court'are not divested by a subsequent decision to the contrary does not apply to the claims of public 'officers to fees or salaries established

City of Gary and Gary Sanitation District v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management and City of Hobart

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2012

The “and” between (A) and (B) clearly reflects that for such discharges for which a new permit limit would be required both (A) and (B) will apply. 5  There is no … relief from an administrative decision 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

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Gregg

554 N.E.2d 1145 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 1990

We held that an expert qualified in the subject matter generally need have no special training or expertise in reading and writing warnings. … Furthermore, the motion to strike does not clearly indicate the evidence to have been improperly admitted. Public Serv. Co. of Ind., Inc. v. Levenstein Bros. (1965), 246 Ind. 520, 528 , 207 N.E.2d 202 .

Newton v. Wyatt

98 Ind. App. 177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1934

Myrtle Wyatt Hunt was named as executrix in the will; she qualified and fully administered the estate. … But the principles settled in that case clearly established the proposition, that, having first given her the life-estate, the testator could not cut it down by a condition in restraint of marriage.

COLE v. THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF INDIANA, INC.

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

As a general matter, "a stay of discovery is warranted only when a party raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue such [as] standing, jurisdiction, or qualified immunity." Id. at *3. … The Court finds that the School has not met its burden to establish that good cause exists for a blanket stay of all discovery. See Robinson, 2015 WL 3961221, at *1. As to the first factor, Mr.

Quiring v. Geico General Insurance Co.

953 N.E.2d 119 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2011

Sefton, 471 N.E.2d 700, 704 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984) (“Clearly the policy of the law is to keep the issue of insurance out of personal injury litigation. … Living hundreds of miles away from Indiana, *131 Quiring clearly did not rely upon having regular access to the Johnston residence.

Implement Service, Inc. v. Tecumseh Products Co.

726 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 1989

Focusing on the third of these three requirements for establishing a “franchise,” the plaintiff would be required to prove at trial facts to establish the payment of a franchise fee to the defendants. … The acts alleged by plaintiff do not clearly establish a violation of the T.R.O. A hearing would need to be held in order to determine whether a violation has occurred and to determine the extent of plaintiff’s damages.

Underhill v. State

428 N.E.2d 759 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1981

He specifically argues that while testimony established the fingerprint impressions made on state’s exhibits 15, 17, and 21 were made by the same person, there was no evidence to establish defendant was the person whose fingerprints … State, (1970) 254 Ind. 379, 384-85 , 260 N.E.2d 572, 576 , this Court held the crime defined in Section 12 “clearly” qualified “as a felony.”

Middleton v. Greeson

106 Ind. 18 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1886

He is elected, gives bond and qualifies as township trustee. As stated in the case of Inglis v. … The legislation of the State clearly shows that^the contracting of debts by township trustees, on behalf of both their school and civil townships, was regarded by the Legislature as a growing evil, and one that should be

Paul A. Croucher v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2014

Thus, even if Croucher had established that the deputy prosecutor’s statements amounted to improper vouching, Croucher has failed to establish on appeal that the deputy prosecutor’s statements placed him in a position of … Croucher did not establish prosecutorial misconduct in this regard. D.

Cole v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Inc.

677 N.E.2d 1069 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1997

Specifically the court noted: The plaintiff submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers … After this, the court noted that daughter "submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers

IND ED. EMP. REL. BD. v. Bd. of Sch. Trust.

368 N.E.2d 1163 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1977

Section 5 of the Act clearly contemplates that the discussion of the factors enumerated therein are to be on behalf of all members of the school employees' bargaining unit. … Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; or 3. In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or short of statutory right; or 4.

Norris v. State

881 N.E.2d 691 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2008

We will review a post-conviction court's findings of, fact under a clearly erroneous standard, but will review its conclusions of law de novo. Burnside, 858 N.E.2d at 237 . … Also, the recantation was clearly discovered subsequent to the guilty plea and could not have been discovered prior to the guilty plea. See State v.