Case law

Wiseman v. Autozone, Inc.

819 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2011

“A plaintiff that reports [sexual harassment] to the police clearly ‘opposes’ it within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).” Worth v. … But, obviously, knowledge alone does not establish causation.

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.

B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Co.

943 N.E.2d 917 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2011

In our view, the common enemy doctrine does not permit the creation of a wetland because that type of action simply does not qualify as “water diversion.” … B *928 & B presented sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief establishing that LEL undertook a duty and breached that duty by not stopping the propagation of wetland species that culminated in the establishment of the wetlands

Salmon v. West Clark Community Schools

64 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 1999

Clearly this approach is disingenuous. … Aside from the obvious fact that Salmon, as an equal contributor in the “interactive process,” never herself suggested this alternative, the undisputed evidence reveals that she clearly expressed a preference for reassignment

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.

Rayford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

851 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1994

At Chapter 10, entitled, “Plan Administration,” the SPD clearly states that the Board of Trustees has such discretionary power. … Clearly, Central States is not limited to the terms of the SPD to assert that the Board of Trustees has such discretionary authority.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.S., N.S., and M.S. and A.S. and D.F., and J.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2012

The trial court’s judgment will be set 5 aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … For the most part, Mother cites her own self-serving testimony from the termination hearing in support of her contention, while occasionally citing testimony by others that is qualified by other testimony.

Dwayne E. Gray v. Chase Home Finance, LLC.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2013

But none of these exhibits were authenticated, and Gray did not establish their admissibility through affidavit. Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper evidence under Trial Rule 56. … “An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Fleming v.

Watt v. State

412 N.E.2d 90 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1980

Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 876 (1974). … In fact, clearly the marijuana in the wood box would not be visible.

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF SCOTTSBURG, INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2020

evidence of pretext unless those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position … The evidence establishes that Ms.

State Ex Rel. Isba v. Ufsc

926 N.E.2d 8 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2010

In our order scheduling briefing in this matter, the parties were advised that the Commissioner‟s findings would be reversed only if found to be clearly erroneous. See GKN Co. v. … Conclusion The evidence establishes that the respondents have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

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.”

Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners v. City of Carmel, Indiana

85 N.E.3d 926 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2017

We set aside findings and judgments only when they are clearly erroneous. Id. As always, we review questions of law de novo. Id. … circumstances under which a municipality is required to provide fire protection); 36-8-13-3 (listing different ways a township can satisfy its fire-protection responsibility); 22-12-1-18.7 (1999) (defining “qualified

Edward M. Hampton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 31 2020, 9:54 am court except for the purpose of establishing … The State agreed with his request “with the exception of [Hampton’s] qualifying impeachable convictions.” Id. at 6.

Knighten v. Marthakis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2023

obtain permanent injunctive relief for constitutionally adequate medical care for his chronic diarrhea and foot warts as required by the Eighth Amendment. 2 Warden Neal also argues he is entitled to qualified … immunity on this claim, but “[q]ualified immunity does not apply to a claim for injunctive relief[.]”

Weisman v. Hopf-Himsel, Inc.

535 N.E.2d 1222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1989

Mravec (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 29, 33 , 440 N.E.2d 600, 605 , (Invoices are admissible into evidence if they qualify as business records.); Marquis Const. Co. v. … Thus, to prevail on their contention that the damage award should be modified, the Weismans must show that the award was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Davis, 501 N.E.2d at 1108 .

BROOKS v. CITY OF CARMEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 16, 2020

Summary judgment was denied as to Brooks' First Amendment claim; however, the Court concluded that Haney is entitled to qualified immunity against the First Amendment claim. … The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

Ronnell Roberts v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 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. … The State established that Ivanyo was an experienced chemist, qualified to test the substances and testify concerning her findings.

CALVIN FARRELL HADLEY v. State

251 Ind. 24 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1968

It was firmly established in the common law as one of the bright features of the Anglo-Saxon contributions to human progress. It was not related to crime or to suspicion of crime. … On the other hand, the decisions of the highest court in this nation, when so clearly well-reasoned and analogous, should not be so lightly dismissed.

Beach v. Beach

642 N.E.2d 269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1994

The rendering-registry method clearly contemplates an already existing support order. … Third, competent evidence must be presented establishing the validity of the claim.