Case law

Shonfeld v. State

219 Ind. 654 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1942

An examination of the evidence indicates very clearly that at the time this affidavit was made, none of the parties involved understood the legal meaning of the jurat or how an oath should be administered. … Conspiracy cannot be established by mere suspicion. Johnson v. State (1935), 208 Ind. 89 , 194 N. E. 619 . Also, as said by this court in Kelley v. State (1936), 210 Ind. 380, 385, 3 . N.

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.

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 .

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

Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. Hedman

104 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 8, 2000

NIGOS, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing that the conduct contains an expressive component. See Clark v. … The NIGOS gun show rules that clearly told exhibitors in bold lettering that “All guns must have tie-downs,” and exhibitors were required to read and agree to abide by the rule, and Mr.

MENES ANKH EL also known as WENDELL BROWN v. INDIANA STATE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2022

Instead, to receive the requested relief, the moving party “must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” … To the extent that Plaintiff raises a claim based on the theory of "sovereign citizen" immunity as a Moorish National, such arguments have been universally rejected by the Courts as frivolous. See United States v.

Marshall v. Wellcraft Marine, Inc.

103 F. Supp. 2d 1099 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 1999

Second, we ask whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident establishes a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.” Id. … Defendants claim that this alleged injury qualified as “transitory sensations at most, resulting in no appreciable physical harm.” Defs.’ Reply at 6.

Carson v. McGuinness

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2020

Plaintiff also sued Joe McGuinness in his official capacity as the Commissioner of INDOT, invoking the Ex parte Young exception to the State’s sovereign immunity. … The text messages suggested that Plaintiff communicated his opinion that Farlow was clearly the most qualified candidate.

Wilson v. Wilson

145 Ind. 659 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1896

Appellant’s principal contentions are that the facts as alleged in the complaint, and as they appear from the evidence in the record, do not establish the ultimate issuable fact that Mrs. … It is sufficient to say that under the issues in this case these were clearly incompetent. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Rodriguez v. State

868 N.E.2d 551 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

This evidence is sufficient to establish that Rodriguez touched C.S. with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. See Sanchez v. … After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case, the trial court acknowledged that neither Rodriguez's offense nor character qualifies as the worst of the worst. Tr. p. 150.

Joe Chuck Pittman v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2024

.… Which allows – qualifies me to be an attorney according to the Black Laws Dictionary (sic). … Both the charging information and the final jury instructions clearly establish that Pittman’s felony-murder conviction is based on Ortiz’s death, while his three Level 3 felony attempted robbery convictions

LEWIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2026

Dismissal for “factual frivolousness” is appropriate where the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). … Plaintiff shall have through April 23, 2026, to SHOW CAUSE why final judgment should not issue due to his failure to establish a basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Lawon Browning v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

Thus, Browning has failed to meet his burden to establish bias. Id. … An abuse of a trial court’s discretion occurs when its ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Fox v. State

717 N.E.2d 957 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1999

Our supreme court has also held that “[t]o qualify as ‘fundamental error,’ the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.” Id. … Fox has not established reversible error with regard to this issue. See Joyner, 678 N.E.2d at 390 .

Chicago & Erie Railway Co. v. Cummings

24 Ind. App. 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 1899

True it does not aver, in express terms, that he was duly appointed *196 and qualified, but it does show the capacity in which he sues. … Many other cases might be cited, but the rule is so firmly established that it would be useless. Counsel for appellant have cited us to the case of Aurelius v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 19 Ind.

Dawson v. Hummer

649 N.E.2d 653 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1995

Because the facts are in dispute as to whether Realtors committed fraud, we cannot say as a matter of law that this exeulpatory clause renders Realtors immune from liability. … We stated "[the element of reliance is established only where the complaining party demonstrates he had a right to rely upon defendant's representations." Id. at 1316 .

Monteith v. Kokomo Wood Enameling Co.

58 L.R.A. 944 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1902

But he must not only be a volunteer in the sense that he went there when he might have stopped away, but it must clearly appear that he went voluntarily, with a full knowledge and understanding of the risk. … A. 367, is directly in conflict with the rules established by the English cases, and adopted by the courts of this *161 country in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana.

Department of Local Government Finance v. Griffin

784 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2003

The general purpose was to provide cost-free emergency medical care to indigent patients who did not qualify for Medicaid. Id. … The act establishes an HCI fund in each county. Montgomery, 730 N.E.2d at 681. The balance of each county’s HCI fund is transferred to the state HCI fund. Id.

Thomas

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2026

The offense and the murder of Frank Freund The evidence at trial established the following. … A reasonable decision not to raise an argument, “even if clearly wrong in retrospect, cannot support a claim that counsel’s conduct was deficient.” Spiller v.

State v. Gerschoffer

738 N.E.2d 713 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2000

Indeed, the fragile foundation of the federal floor as a bulwark against arbitrary action is clearly revealed when, as here, the federal floor falls below minimum state protection.” … The efficacy of a roadblock is clearly no justification for it.