Case law

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.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.M.K. and A.O.K., minor children, and T.D., biological father T.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2013

The trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous when the findings of fact and conclusions thereon do not support it. Id. … When the juvenile court terminates the parent-child relationship “all rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations, including any rights to custody, control, parenting time, or support pertaining to the

Greenbush Cemetery Ass'n v. Van Natta

49 Ind. App. 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1911

E. 198 , in passing upon a similar provision of an act of the legislature, the court said: “We do not think this language was intended to or could be held to change or qualify the general rules of construction applicable … regarding cemeteries so managed as not to yield any pecuniary profit to the owners or managers, do not evidence any intention to change the policy which gave appellant its charter and exempted its property from taxation, but clearly

David Oaks v. Timothy R. Chamberlain, M.D.

76 N.E.3d 941 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 2017

that which he contends is adequate, we cannot deny that such a disparity would, nevertheless, be quite relevant to a jury that is charged with determining which of two highly qualified … Such instructions should, for example, clearly define the legal meaning of standard of care; enunciate the principle that a mere difference in views between physicians does Court of Appeals

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.

Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Crompton Corp.

381 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 2005

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. … Clearly, the term “alkoxy” is to be construed in a manner consistent with the references for other substituent groups.

Eddie Wilkerson v. Robert R. Carr and Lawyer Transport, Inc. (mem. dec.)

65 N.E.3d 596 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

We reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, … Rule 702 of the Indiana Rules of Evidence provides as follows with regards to the admissibility of expert witness testimony: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Intercare Health Plans, Inc.

101 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 25, 2000

The sponsor contended that these money damages were the functional equivalent of disgorged benefits obtained by the administrator and would make the sponsor whole again, concluding that this remedy qualified as classic equitable … This position is clearly incorrect. The commentary to 1447(c) expressly states that it is within the court’s discretion to award costs and fees.

SCOTT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2026

Hughes, 26 F. 4th 419, 435 (7th Cir. 2022) ("Liability under [Monell] is difficult to establish, requiring a § 1983 plaintiff to prove that a municipality, either through an express policy or an implied policy of inaction … As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Watts v.

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Mar 15 2013, 9:14 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … We may set aside agency findings of fact only when we determine, after a review of the entire record, that the agency’s decision clearly “lacks a reasonably sound basis of evidentiary support.”

Roger Lee Kilburn v. Deirdre v. Kilburn (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2016

Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing … We “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A).

Bundy v. Dollar Tree

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 19, 2024

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [DE 2] establishes that she is unable to prepay the filing fee. … Id., at ¶ 6; • “The facts alleged by Plaintiff clearly identify a dispute arising from the Plaintiff’s purchase of a product called Chap-[e]ze on or about November 24

WILLIAMSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2025

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. … their disability academic adjustment for all class that are required to obtain a degree," and that Ivy Tech breached its contract with Williamson by failing to provide a reasonable disability accommodation and having a qualified

Elbert v. Elbert

579 N.E.2d 102 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1991

It is clearly otherwise. … After October 1, 1989, the Guidelines must be used in all Indiana courts to establish or modify support.

Indiana Bell Tel. Co. Inc. v. Boyd

421 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1981

(b) The practice of denying these rights to properly qualified persons by reason of the race, religion, color, sex, handicap, national origin or ancestry of *664 such person is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality … We hold, therefore, that the conduct complained of fails, as a matter of law, to establish an unlawful discriminatory practice under the Indiana Civil Right Law.

Good. v. Western Pulaski County School Corp.

139 Ind. App. 567 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1966

Thompson, was made a party to the action, he disqualified himself, and Honorable Russell Gordon, regular Judge of the 39th Judicial Circuit by appointment of the Supreme Court of Indiana, on March 3, 1962, qualified and served … It is incumbent upon the appellant to rebut this presumption in his brief by clearly showing that the trial court committed serious error which denied the relief to which he was entitled under the law, ...”

Hashfield v. State

247 Ind. 95 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1965

an expert could not express an opinion as to the legal sanity or insanity of the appellant on the basis of this demonstrative evidence, there is no reason to believe that the jurors, who were not experts, would be more qualified … Clearly these facts are not applicable to the present case. 8 . On oral argument, it was established furthermore, that the attorney so complaining did not even use all of his allotted time.

United States v. Collazo

798 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 8, 1992

Collazo was summoned to appear, under a grant of immunity, before a federal grand jury investigating Max Perez, Larry Jackson, and others. While under oath before that grand jury, Mr. … Section 2J1.3, which applies to most perjury sentences, ordinarily establishes a base offense level of 12.

JS v. State

843 N.E.2d 1013 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2006

We do not believe that an officer's assumption about an individual's actions, without more, establishes her motivations beyond a reasonable doubt. … An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic *1018 and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Kurt Stuhlmacher v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2017

The facts that Stuhlmacher had mental health issues, had attempted suicide in the past, and was prohibited from hunting on the farmer’s property, do not qualify as crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts … In other words, Stuhlmacher has not established that there was any extrajudicial contact with the jury at all.