Case law

Steven Norris v. Jennifer Norris

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2025

The non-debtor ex-spouse may look to the debtor for reimbursement pursuant to any nondischargeable “hold harmless” obligations, but the non-debtor ex-spouse is not immune from … Jennifer still has an obligation to pay Steven the remaining debt amount which the record clearly shows is $4,340.86, which the majority found.

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).

Economan v. Cockrell

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 23, 2020

Sovereign immunity. … , privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution. . . .

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).

SCHULTZ v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2025

The first two elements are clearly alleged and do not warrant further discussion. … To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, "'a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer was aware of his disability; and (3) the employer failed to

Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co.

52 Ind. 51 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1875

It is objected, in the third place, that it is not alleged that a board of directors was elected and qualified, to order the payment of subscriptions. … It all rested on the mere supposition and presumption of the juror, which are not sufficient to establish any disputed fact.

In Re: The Guardianship of C.R. and A.R. E.R. v. M.S. and D.S. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2016

[33] Notably, during her direct examination, Hood testified that she is not qualified to issue a PTSD diagnosis, however, as a licensed medical and family therapist, she is “qualified to suggest a diagnosis … Accordingly, we established that Apple exceeded her mandate by suggesting how visits should proceed.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Hupp

605 N.E.2d 768 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1992

This provision clearly states that the “home” continues to exist under some circumstances even though the child is temporarily absent from the customary setting. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Grp., Inc.

308 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2018

The Management Forecasts are clearly forward-looking statements within the meaning of the PSLRA. … The Union Square Analysis is clearly a forward-looking statement within the meaning the PSLRA.

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Foland

174 Ind. 411 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1910

This rule is well established. … A superior servant cannot be said to be a vice-principal in giving a negligent order in the progress of a changing work any more than it can be said that a master is liable where a qualified servant chooses a negligent manner

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Lockhart

5 F. Supp. 2d 667 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 1998

Clearly this will be most critical as plans are implemented to position your successor.” Ex. 145. … The roofing industry clearly thinks and talks about these as two separate markets.

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.

McCool v. Ayres

136 Ind. App. 72 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1963

Wuethrich, was appointed and qualified as Administra *93 tor with the Will Annexed of the estate. … We are convinced that the controlling and decisive facts and factors in the case were established without controversy and that such facts and factors establish as a matter of law that the deed executed by decedent to the

WOODS v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 11, 2022

Reeves, like the other Defendants, argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because "[i]t was not clearly established in August 2019 that moving Plaintiff from LHU to GHU due to his INP status constitutes a First

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.

Smith v. Logansport Community School Corp.

139 F.R.D. 637 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 3, 1991

Plaintiffs’ answers to LCSC’s interrogatories are evasive and clearly insufficient. It is well-established that an answer to an interrogatory “must be responsive to the question. … Clearly, it would make no sense to require such a formality, especially in light of the liberal objectives of discovery.

Estate of Wyatt Beckler v. City of Fort Wayne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 2025

Section 1983 “Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of a citizen’s ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … Section 1983 states that “[e]very person who . . . subjects . . . any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Burger Man, Inc. v. Jordan Paper Products, Inc.

170 Ind. App. 295 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1976

Furthermore, Jordan’s answers to interrogatories propounded by Vesco and Burger Man clearly indicate that the contract being sued upon was oral. … Such circumstances might occur where the duplicate is not fully legible or where only a portion of the total original document is offered and the remainder would be useful for cross examination, or might qualify the portion

Herzog v. Burton

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 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 … Herzog has plausibly alleged a due process violation based on unconstitutionally vague jail rules that don’t clearly define what conduct is prohibited.

Canganelli v. Lake County Indiana Department of Public Welfare (In Re Canganelli)

132 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 1991

Clearly the Court is not the trustee or U.S. Trustee, nor is it a “creditor” as defined by § 101(9). The Court may qualify as having the same rights as a creditor, trustee or U.S. … to change the meaning is clearly and indubitably manifested.