Case law

Wallace Henderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or where the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. … whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

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)).

Buschman v. ADS CORP.

782 N.E.2d 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2003

Buschman's acceptance of ADS's Offer Letter was not qualified by any so-called 'contingency.' " In support of its argument, ADS relies on this court's opinion in Kahn v. … It is well established that an award of attorney's fees is not justified merely because a party loses on the merits. Chrysler, 637 N.E.2d at 840 .

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.

Smith v. State

497 N.E.2d 601 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1986

His verified motion for change of judge was filed on December 19, 1984, clearly beyond the ten day period. The motion failed to state reasons why it was untimely. … He argues that the state failed to establish that the witnesses knew the difference between truthtelling and lying.

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

Ben-Yisrayl v. State

753 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2001

A petitioner has the burden to establish grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5). … A lawyer who did not raise these various challenges to the prevailing rule of a “death-qualified jury” would be well within the standard of performance required by the Sixth Amendment.

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.”).

WEST v. PRETORIUS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity Because the Court has found as a matter of law that Defendants did not violate Mr. … Johnson's constitutional rights, the Court need not address their qualified immunity argument. Sparing v.

Indianapolis Elks Building Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

145 Ind. App. 522 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 1969

Fraternal organizations are, without question, entitled to property tax exemption if they can otherwise qualify under what we have heretofore stated to be the established procedures used in determining an exempt status, i.e … “Although such interpretation placed upon a statute may not be binding upon the court if such interpretation is clearly incorrect, it is entitled to considerable weight when it is necessary for the court to make an interpretation

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.

TURNER v. DEMAREE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 11, 2021

Demaree contends that his use of force was objectively reasonable, he was not involved in providing medical treatment to Turner, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. A. … City of Chicago, 2 Because the Court has found that Demaree's use of force was not unreasonable, the Court need not address his qualified immunity argument. 656 F.3d 523, 530

Peterson v. Culver Educational Foundation

74 Ind. Dec. 549 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1980

This formulation clearly recognizes that an independent tort is not a prerequisite to the recovery of punitive damages, and we adhere to this standard as a wise one.’ (Original emphasis.) … Further issues in defense are: 5) privileged communication, absolute or qualified; and 6) truth. 18 I.L.E. Libel and Slander §§ 21-51 (1959). *462 In the former ease the verdict and judgment were general.

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.]

Brown v. State

252 Ind. 161 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1969

The above recital from the report of the Sheppard case is a very cursory summation of a part of the publicity surrounding the trial and clearly demonstrates that that case is inapplicable to the facts in the case at bar. … In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors

PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts

829 N.E.2d 943 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2005

Moreover, it is too broad and may be misapplied to any and all claims of injury to employees of subcontractors even when any one of the five recognized exceptions are clearly applicable. … I believe, however, that this innovation is detrimental to more important and established principles of responsibility and accountability in tort.

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

Darwin Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2014

To avoid waiver, the defendant must establish that fundamental error occurred, which is an error that “ma[de] a fair trial impossible or constitute[d a] clearly blatant violation[ ] of basic and elementary principles of … Here, the record established that Officer Brinker was qualified as a skilled or expert witness based on his extensive experience and training.

Thurman v. State

602 N.E.2d 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1992

Even though Thurman's consent to the search of his car did not qualify as an exception to the warrant requirement, the evidence seized therein was nevertheless admissible. … The "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement, as established by Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 LEd.2d 564 (1971) and recently modified by Horton v.

Crist v. Bowen

682 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 1988

Shively would be more qualified to express an opinion as to the effects of such a condition, than the AU. Dr. … Finally, assuming the plaintiff could be seen to fit under paragraph one of SSR 83-12, she is clearly excluded from the proposed line of thinking by paragraph two.