Case law

Nathan K. Barker v. State of Indiana

994 N.E.2d 306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2013

Code § 35-38-2.5-5(e). 10 our supreme court held that the defendant’s in-home detention prior to trial constituted confinement sufficient to qualify him for credit … App. 2002) (holding that defendant had failed to establish disparate and preferential treatment between pretrial and post-sentencing home detainees). 12 of his executed

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.

Keel v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2020

. § 1915A, I must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. … Even if Officer Bisher was qualified to initiate criminal proceedings, which seems unlikely, it is unclear how declining to do so relates to Keel’s safety.

Stults v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.

31 F. Supp. 3d 1015 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 2014

First, defendants contend that the Stults cannot establish proximate cause for their failure to warn claim because they cannot establish that, but for defendants’ failure to warn ConAgra about the potential health risks associated … Changing ConAgra’s warnings As noted above, defendants contend that the Stults cannot establish proximate cause for their failure to warn claim because they cannot establish that, but for defendants’ failure to warn ConAgra

SWEET v. TOWN OF BARGERSVILLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 2020

In addition, the Defendants argue entitlement to qualified immunity. … She acknowledges that she has the initial burden to produce prima facie evidence of being a member of a protected class, being qualified for the job from which she was terminated, she was terminated despite being qualified

Brandan Bellamy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … In our view, the State presented independent sufficient evidence to establish that Bellamy had struck Hamler. Indeed, Bellamy did not deny hitting Hamler.

D.G. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2018

not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … [7] The statute further provides that the trier of fact may consider several relevant factors in determining whether qualified representations have been made, including “statements made by the owner or

Barton v. Sullivan

774 F. Supp. 1151 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 1991

The plaintiff’s mother sought to establish that the plaintiff, her unborn child Ryan, was the wage earner’s son. A.R. 74. … by establishing that the insured person contributed to their support".

United States v. Baldwin

959 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1997

Owokoniran, 840 F.2d 373, 374 (7th Cir.1987) (noting that the statute “clearly contemplates that the indictment can be the ‘last oecur[ring]’ step, triggering the running of the 70-day period”), accord, United States v. … But if the statute of limitations has run in the meantime, dismissal without prejudice would have the same practical effect as dismissal with prejudice — immunity from criminal liability.

Marnocha v. City of Elkhart

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2019

Whether a position qualifies as policymaking is a determination that “may be done without a finder of fact when the duties and responsibilities of a particular position are clearly defined by law and regulations.” … As such, she also qualifies as an immediate adviser with respect to constitutional or legal powers.

Pisek v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. Disability Insurance Plan

633 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 2007

In this case, the SPD, which Plaintiff possessed at all times relevant to this litigation, clearly states that the plan administrator is Kindred but that the claims are administered by MetLife, and it provides addresses for … Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees on the issue of whether he qualified for the 24-month limitation exception.

Schultz v. Ford Motor Co.

857 N.E.2d 977 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2006

That is, the finder of fact would be required to find the presumed fact once the basic fact is established, unless the opponent of the presumption persuaded the factfinder of the nonexistence of the presumed fact. … They argue that giving continuing effect to the rebuttable presumption in Indiana Code section 34-20-5-1 “allow[s] manufacturers to effectively immunize themselves from liability upon a showing that their prod- ucts comply

In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.P., a Minor Child, and His Mother, J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2014

Though it was “disappointed” that the CHINS court failed to appoint counsel for J.A. even though she qualified, it nevertheless found the error to be harmless. Id. at 791. … We note that the case law does not clearly define how sections 31- 32-4-3 and 31-34-4-6 are to be read in conjunction with each other.

TAYLOR v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 3, 2019

Even assuming, arguendo, MCSO is not immune, Taylor still must present evidence that MCSO failed to train or supervise its employees. … Clearly, Hall cannot be held liable for Plaintiffs state law claims. This would be true even if his behavior was egregious.” (Internal citation omitted)).

DOE v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2020

A party can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. … It states: 2 The Court notes that its Practices and Procedures clearly set forth in Appendix A how to cite to exhibits in a brief. [Filing No. 7.]

Ellettsville Holdings, LLC v. Garnett D. Kinser

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2012

Hence the need for Kinser to hire someone qualified to conduct an ALTA survey and certify the survey as such. … Kinser, having no expertise in the area of ALTA surveys, hired a qualified professional to conduct the ALTA survey.

Pfenning v. Lineman

947 N.E.2d 392 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 18, 2011

As to the golfer's hitting an errant drive which resulted in the plaintiff's injury, such conduct is clearly within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers and thus is reasonable as a matter of law and does not establish … The determination of duty is one of law for the court, Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 466, and we hold that the risk of a person on a golf course being struck by a golf ball does not qualify as the "unreasonable risk of harm" referred

In the Matter of the Name and Gender Change of R.E.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2020

I don’t know if he is a doctor and if he is a doctor who is qualified in this area. Id. at 19. … And to the extent our review requires us to consider the trial court’s factual determinations, we will apply the clearly erroneous standard. In re A.L., 81 N.E.3d at 288.

Doe v. Town of Plainfield

893 N.E.2d 1124 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2008

That is, we begin with the presumption that the ordinance is constitutional until clearly overcome by a contrary showing. See Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996). … See Appellant’s Br. at 40 (“To ban [Doe], merely because of his past offenses, is clearly excessive and fails to have a rational connection with any non-punitive purpose.”).

In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: I.B. and W.B.: B.B. v. B.C. and J.L., and Indiana Department of Child Services

32 N.E.3d 1164 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

And under its more recent “classification” analysis, the statute’s regrettable consequences under the facts of this case establish no as-applied constitutional violation. … The party challenging the statute must clearly overcome that presumption by a contrary showing. Hubbard v. State, 849 N.E.2d 1165, 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.