Case law

Butler v. Rangel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 14, 2025

court 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 … He clearly stated the severeness of the pain and suffering that he felt in his abdominal area and asked Officer Rangel to take him to medical. Butler told him, “Something is really wrong!” ECF 5 at 2.

In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hospital, Inc.

827 N.E.2d 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 4, 2005

The Division of Mental Health and Addictions establishes exclusive geographic territories to be served by CMHCs. 440 IAC 41-3-1. … But the rules also qualify CMHCs' duties, stating that the services must be provided "within the limits of the capacity of the center." Id. at (d).

Hutchens v. Covert

39 Ind. App. 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1906

not whether the soldier was in line of duty at the time he received his injury, in the sense that he was not disobeying any military law, rule, or regulation, or guilty of any culpable negligence, but rather what is the qualify … We are clearly of the opinion that, under the facts pleaded, appellant has not brought herself within the statute, and that she has no right of recovery. Judgment affirmed.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Peabody Coal Co.

654 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1995

In so doing we cited with approval several federal court cases and observed: It is well-established under federal law that agencies are free to change past rulings and policies. [citation omitted]. … The use of the conjunction "and" between "erosion" and "air pollution" clearly means that an operator must control erosion in addition to pollution caused by erosion.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer

840 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 1993

The stronger argument, however, clearly favors pre-emption. … That premise, and Dawson ’s holding, is clearly inapposite to § 1821(k) claims.

A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman

904 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 1995

However, Casey clearly left several avenues open for such challenges. … from attorney disciplinary rules clearly violated separation of powers).

Crum v. AVCO Financial Services of Indianapolis, Inc.

552 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1990

The evidence established that a reasonable hourly fee for the Vigo/Fountain County area would be $75 per hour. … AVCO never recorded a deed transferring title to the Crums, so AVCO did not qualify for the insurance referred to in the contract. Record at 396.

City of Evansville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

965 N.E.2d 92 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2012

“Opinions expressing a mere possibility with regard to a hypothetical situation are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” … If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. We addressed a similar argument in Newnam.

Clem v. Christole, Inc.

548 N.E.2d 1180 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1990

The challenger’s burden is to clearly and convincingly demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the statute. … The Commission may well be right that it is a good idea, but that does not establish that the Nollans (and other coastal residents) alone can be compelled to contribute to its realization.

Patterson v. Howe

307 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2018

A matter that is admitted "is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." See Dkt. 23 at p. 12. III. … Use of a discovery device authorized by the Indiana Trial Rules does not immunize Mr. Howe from liability under the FDCPA regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Mr.

Taylor v. White

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 12, 2025

court 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 … Filing a grievance qualifies as “protected activity” for purposes of a First Amendment claim. Gomez, 680 F.3d at 866.

Ranger Team Building, LLC v. Vince Caccavale (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2020

Clearly, the “Use Limitation” as specified by the Starke County authorities prohibits any residential construction on the subject property. … It is the “Use Limitation” which is clearly the cause of termination of this [P]urchase [A]greement. (Appellant’s App. Vol. IV, pp. 115-16).

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company v. Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC

977 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Thus, we conclude that the establishment of the UMAs is unavoidable. … The first step in any statutory interpretation is determining if the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2013

the issue of self-defense, “the State’s failure to present evidence at the initial hearing overcoming his defense made Gilmore immune from further prosecution[.]” … Thus, the State clearly and successfully sought to avoid any misconduct regarding its theory of the case during voir dire.

Aki-Khuam v. Davis

203 F. Supp. 2d 1001 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2002

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States … Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Williams, 120 S.Ct. at 1512 .

Jacob Adams v. Hamilton County, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2025

A county qualifies as a “person” under the Act. I.C. § 34-14-1- 13. … Further, the bill would more clearly articulate accreditation, training, testing, and reporting requirements imposed by the Department on County Service Officers.

Michael Wayne Wise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2016

He paid for each order upon delivery because he did not qualify for a line of credit. … We review its rulings for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

John M. Mayer, Jr., as Special Administrator of the Estate of Paige R. Winn v. Michael. W. Davis

991 N.E.2d 116 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2013

In the instant matter, the record clearly demonstrates that Davis failed to either request that the trial court open an estate for Winn or file a claim against the Estate within the permissible timeframe set forth in Indiana … Unlike in Pistalo, the instant appeal stems from a suit against the deceased tortfeasor’s estate seeking to establish liability on behalf of the deceased tortfeasor.

Trump

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 2025

Whether an act or omission is within the scope of employment for purposes of ITCA immunity is an affirmative defense. … However, in federal court, states and their agencies enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Katz-Crank v.

Gomez v. ST. VINCENT HEALTH, INC.

622 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 2008

Plaintiff Gomez’s qualifying date was November 30, 2004. Dkt. 16, Ex. C; Dkt. 31, Ex. A-l. Three different plaintiffs filed a similar suit against St. … The logic of American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal clearly points toward allowing tolling in this situation to discourage the precautionary filing of other class action lawsuits, thereby confronting the federal court system