Case law

The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Likes Law Office, LLC Kevin L. Likes Rickey D. Whitaker and Cheryl L. Whitaker

44 N.E.3d 1279 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2015

The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … A party offering the affidavit bears the burden of establishing its admissibility. Id.

Gatto v. St. Richard School, Inc.

774 N.E.2d 914 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2002

Whether the qualified privilege protects a statement is a question of law. Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind. 1992). … addressed in person to a school board at a school board meeting concerning the curriculum and instruction in an English class at a public high school in which his son was enrolled and his son's difficulties with the class clearly

Wampler v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 4, 2022

The ALJ already recognized that migraine disorder was a medically determinable impairment so clearly 16 found sufficient evidence to establish that fact … Therefore, there is involvement of at least three body systems (immune, neurologic, and musculoskeletal).

Major Loren Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2020

Wilson argues that T.R.’s statements to Officer Manley did not qualify as an excited utterance. … “[U]nder the . . . actual evidence test, the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish only one or even several

Paris Knox v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2012

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the FILED Oct 10 2012, 9:16 am purpose of establishing … Brief of Appellant at 5. 2 Although Knox’s Class D felony of intimidation does not qualify as a serious violent felony under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5, both of his Class B felonies qualify.

Ybarra v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2019

“[I]n order to state a section 1983 claim against prison officials for failure to protect, [a plaintiff] must establish: (1) that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and (2) … Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996), Counselor Taylor’s response on behalf of Deputy Warden Payne clearly did not prevent him from filing a complaint and initiating this lawsuit.

Christopher A. Toth v. Julia L. Noblitt (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2017

long enough to qualify for benefits. … Again, “[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Id.

Rachelle (Purcell) LaMonde v. Gary Purcell (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2018

Findings will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

Donzahue Pearson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2012

We therefore reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances. Id. … Thus, one could argue that the hotel, rather than Pearson’s parents’ home, was Pearson’s “permanent home and principal establishment.”

Curtis Elliott v. Gradex, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2020

occurred as he turned into Riddell’s driveway, our review of Indiana cases reveals none that support Elliott’s 7 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 (1965) provides that the following persons qualify … Code § 34-13-3-3(18) (declaring “[T]his subdivision [governing immunity for governmental entities and employees] shall not be construed to relieve a responsible governmental entity from the continuing duty

Kevin Charles Isom v. State of Indiana

31 N.E.3d 469 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 20, 2015

Br. of Appellant at 63. 11 Even assuming for the sake of argument that the family’s forgiveness qualifies as a mitigating factor Isom’s argument still fails. … “The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Brown v.

Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana

26 N.E.3d 3 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2015

State, 122 So.3d 614, 642 (Miss. 2013), cert. denied (“speculative opinion testimony of how a defendant may adapt to prison life in the future is not admissible unless the expert is qualified and accepted in the field of … Clearly, the circumstances in Mincey were exponentially more egregious than those present before us.

Allen Houx v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2020

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Cox v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1025, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). … The Court concluded the victim was still under the stress of excitement when she spoke with the officer, and as a result her statements qualified as excited utterances that were not subject to the

Finley v. Chain

176 Ind. App. 66 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1978

Finley also urges us to consider that the amounts already paid have established a substantial equity in the purchasers. … Additionally, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the cause of the Finley’s inability to procure the renewal.

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

Reeves v. Boyd & Sons, Inc.

654 N.E.2d 864 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1995

Carr's initial testimony as to his training and medical experience qualify him as an expert witness. … The test result was hearsay and does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule as a business record.

Jackson v. Verizon Wireless

676 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 28, 2009

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Jackson would not have been chosen because he was not the most qualified applicant. See Shipley, 874 F.Supp. at 942 .

Powers v. CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

679 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 2009

I also denied Powers’ request to certify to the Indiana Supreme Court the question of whether that exemption was constitutional under Indiana’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Id. … In the example above, if Powers did not work enough , hours in December to qualify for overtime, she would not have to be paid any overtime despite putting in the extra .hours earlier in June.

Bauer v. Corley

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2023

Bauer hasn’t presented any evidence to support the remaining claims, much less established a genuine issue for trial, so summary judgment is granted for the defendants. … As no claims remain against Officer Corley, the court need not address qualified immunity.   3 He makes three conclusory statements related to

Harmon v. Bolley

187 Ind. 511 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1918

The government extends to the citizen the protection of its laws and he enjoys the rights, privileges and immunities of citizenship. … City of Shelbyville, supra, and the distinction was clearly pointed out by Justice Baker in the dissenting opinion wherein it is said: “The federal Constitution is not what" the citizen may read it to be, but is what the