Case law

Stout v. Bottorff

246 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 1965

What was said in this regard in the “Statement of Facts” appended to the Hendricks decision was clearly for illustrative purposes relating to the issue there. … Clearly the vote of the Morgan or Hendricks county voter is not approximately equal to that of the Marion County voter.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.N.B. (Minor Child), and F.B. (Mother) and J.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2019

We will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … Father claims this was an abuse of discretion because “[t]he record was replete with evidence leading to the inexorable conclusion that” the Campbells “were qualified persons most suitable and willing

Logan v. Quality Care

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2022

. § 1915A, the court must screen the 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 states that he had a “diet consult” with an unidentified person in mid-August 2022, and was told he did not qualify for a special diet because he had gained two pounds since his arrival at the jail.

Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Inc. v. Bayh

753 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 1990

Although evenhanded in its text, the provision is not immune from constitutional scrutiny. … The Act was clearly the product of compromise among the House and Senate sponsors and the Governor. It clearly had bipartisan support.

General Motors Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

578 N.E.2d 399 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 11, 1991

The court's sole concern, however, is whether GM's manufacture of finished automobiles qualifies as one continuous integrated production process for the purpose of exemption from sales/use tax. … Clearly, GM asks only for simple interest on the total money the Department wrongfully held.

Forrester v. State

440 N.E.2d 475 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1982

The determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. Niehaus v. … It’s not been properly identified, there’s been no chain of custody established.” R. at 437. In Woodard v.

Daniel Wahl and Saundra Wahl v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2020

Dragan could not be qualified to testify as an expert since “[a] very small amount of Dr. … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Julian v. State

811 N.E.2d 392 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a), the trial court has the discretion to allow a witness, who is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education," to testify in the form of an opinion … When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor during sentencing, the defendant must establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record

Kesling v. Kesling

967 N.E.2d 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2012

While we review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, we review de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. Id.; Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 59 (Ind.2002). … We will conclude a judgment is clearly erroneous if no evidence supports the findings, the findings fail to support the judgment, or if the trial court applies the incorrect legal standard.

Nathaniel Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

But we view this exception as an extremely narrow one, available only “when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles [of due process], and … A juror who qualifies for removal under these constitutional or statutory criteria may be removed as an “incompetent juror,” while a juror “who is not removable for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum

Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.

9 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 20, 1998

Subsections (a), (b) and (c) clearly impose liability directly on a seller, purchaser, or financial advisor who violates the Act unless that seller, purchaser, or financial ad-visor can sustain its burden of establishing … As DLJ states in its Memorandum, ”[i]n order to qualify as a 'qualified institutional buyer’ under the SEC's private placement rules, all potential investors were required to own or invest on a discretionary basis at least

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.W. and D.C. (Minor Children), and J.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2017

II is properly clothed, fed, and supervised; establish Father’s paternity to J.W. … [10] In April of 2014, Father’s paternity to D.C. was established.

Edward John Meiggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing … But our Supreme Court has clearly stated that claims of inconsistent verdicts are not reviewable on appeal. Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 649 (Ind. 2010).

Tre Ron Smith v. State of Indiana

121 N.E.3d 669 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2019

The Court reasoned the ability to track 911 calls provided “safeguards against making false reports with immunity[,]” id. at 1689, which was a concern in earlier cases. … [26] A “close case” also exists here; however, I do not believe the information given by the anonymous caller rose to the same level of reliability that the Navarette Court found sufficient to establish

Galateanu

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2026

Unit Team Manager (UTM) Dennis Hood asked him to “establish and facilitate the Narcotics Anonymous Program.” ECF 1 at 3. Galateanu did so the next month. … He subsequently “established, helped facilitate, and work[ed] for Mr.

Jonah Long v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

The record clearly explains that trial evidence was mistakenly commingled. … To qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face. Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Ind. 1997).

Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. South-Coast Bank

587 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 29, 1984

The foregoing facts establish that First United acted as South-Coast’s agent, and South-Coast is bound by the acts of its agent. … Though there are several tests to determine where a claim arose for purposes of venue, none has emerged as being clearly preferable, 2 particularly when a claim has arisen in more than one district.

Muncie & Portland Traction Co. v. Citizens Gas & Oil Mining Co.

179 Ind. 322 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1912

“A complaint must be con *329 strued upon the theory which is most apparent and clearly outlined by the facts stated therein.” M. S. Huey Co. v. Johnston (1905), 164 Ind. 489, 491 , 73 N. E. 996 . … These witnesses qualified themselves as to having knowledge of the value of such property in the locality in which the same was situated and it was proper evidence to fix the values of the. property upon *334 which, the measure

Clinton v. Steel Warehouse Co LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 24, 2022

The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements. … Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 593 (2007) (“It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal

H. C. Smith Coal Co. v. Finley

190 Ind. 481 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1921

A hearing was had which resulted in the appointment of a receiver who qualified and took charge of appellee’s business. … But liberal construction does not mean a construction which will enlarge express statutory provisions- so as to include a right not clearly given and inconsistent with other well-established and fundamental principles of