Case law

Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Ward

449 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1983

The instant case is a disciplinary action, not a suit to establish liability. … We perceive IC 25-22.5-6-2(6) as clearly falling within the medical licensing act and as defining a specific kind of "unprofessional" conduct. 11 .

Vincent J. Prowell v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1998

The trial court’s statement, although brief, adequately establishes that the court evaluated and balanced the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 4. … Thus, the issue is not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.

Wooten v. State

418 N.E.2d 538 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

Furthermore, Phillips saw Wooten clearly at the scene of the offense for approximately four minutes. Phillips was also able to identify Wooten from a photographic display, as well, as at trial. … Ind.Code 33-4-5-7 establishes as a qualification that a juror, either grand or petit, must be a resident voter of the county and a freeholder or householder.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railway Co.

116 Ind. 578 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1888

If, without doing violence to the words of the statute, a wise and just policy can be established, it is the duty of the courts to so interpret the statute as to establish that policjn A construction which will overturn a … It is generally held that the fact of inability to agree is a jurisdictional one, but our judgment is that it is a jurisdictional fact only in a qualified sense, for we believe that, as held in Ney v.

Ellis v. Myers

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2019

Ellis’ constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

McGrew v. State

673 N.E.2d 787 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1996

The Court held that the test established in Frye v. … In so holding, we stress that we are not establishing a per se rule of inadmissibility for microscopic hair analysis.

Reedus v. McDonough

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 2024

However, that does not necessarily establish that Drumm maintained that role in 2019. … (ECF 95-4 at 5).7 Management of credentialing and privileging was clearly a portion of McBride’s occupation.

Woodring v. Culbertson

227 F.R.D. 290 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2005

This qualifies as a potential impairment of Cincinnati’s interest and thus satisfies the third requirement for intervention as of right. See Axsom, 684 N.E.2d at 244 . … Indeed, if the Woodrings had originally sued both the Culbertsons and Cincinnati, the Court would clearly lack jurisdiction over their case.

LELI v. V2X, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 16, 2023

The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity as to certain tort claims but expressly preserves sovereign immunity as to "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces … This is not the type of incidental activity that should qualify as 'combatant' for purposes of the FTCA.").

Uthman Cavallo, M.D. v. Allied Physicians of Michiana, LLC

42 N.E.3d 995 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

The nature of the issues presented and the remedies sought determines whether an action qualifies as “legal.” J.R. Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 563 F.3d 1102, 1115 (10th Cir. 2009). … 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. Id.

French v. Owens

538 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 1982

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. … Past General Assemblies have also failed to appropriate funds sufficient to permit the defendants to hire a sufficient number of qualified personnel and to establish adequate programs as contemplated by Indiana law.

Wallace v. State

199 Ind. 317 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1927

The immunity guaranteed by the constitution should not be lightly set aside by a mere general declaration of a nonjudicial officer that he has reason to believe and does believe, etc. … The question in the instant case is the admissibility of evidence presented by an alleged *339 void search warrant to sustain an entirely different proposition from that before the court in the Rose case, thus clearly distinguishing

Dowell v. State

865 N.E.2d 1059 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2007

R.B. clearly indicated no. They spent nearly two and a half hours at the pub. Dowell drank several beverages while R.B. had three during that time, two of which Dowell helped finish. … Dowell objected to the question and the State responded that the Information was gained during the course of a medical examination, and, thus, qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(

JANE DOES 1-4 v. BUTLER UNIVERSITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2024

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a notice pleading regime, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. … Without more, that allegation does not establish an absolute privilege under Indiana law. The lead cases, Abbott, 148 N.E.3d 1091, and Hartman v.

Lynn A. Johnson v. Michele Bradberry, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony O. Johnson, (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

[7] Clearly, Lynn was dilatory, rather than diligent, in procuring counsel to represent her at the hearing. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-GU-26 | December 17, 2020 Page 10 of 23  which we may not set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Recticel Foam Corp.

716 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1999

Recticel initiated this action against certain insurers, including Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”), to establish insurance coverage for its alleged environmental contamination. … However, a non-waiver agreement does not immunize an insurer from responsibility for all its actions. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Fox, 361 F.2d 1, 7 (10th Cir.1966).

Klagiss v. State

585 N.E.2d 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1992

After being qualified as an expert, Dr. Kahairi testified that osteoporosis renders bones susceptible to fracture with little trauma. … We need not address these inconsistencies individually, because none even arguably tends to establish that Green perjured himself.

McGlone v. Hauger

56 Ind. App. 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1914

Judge Cooley, in his Elements of Torts said: “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone. * * * But the attempt to commit a battery * * * involves usually an insult, a putting … rectly in writing the verdict to which they had, by a dne and regular • course of proceeding, honestly and fairly arrived. * * * No considerations of public policy require that the uncontradicted testimony of jurors to establish

Marq Hall v. State of Indiana

36 N.E.3d 459 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2015

As the Court of Appeals stated, “the State used the phone call as a sword to attack Hall’s credibility, while it simultaneously used the motion in limine as a shield to immunize A.D. from cross-examination, to bolster A.D … However, the fourth factor clearly favors the State, as Hall was otherwise permitted to extensively cross-examine both A.D. and M.T. about what happened before, during, and after the rape.

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Kristine C. Danz

27 N.E.3d 774 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2015

Danz’s response is that the Millers have not established that the Fifth Amended Complaint inserting Danz for John Doe #8 meets the requirements of Ind. … This is most clearly demonstrated by federal cases allowing relation back where plaintiffs pursuing § 1983 claims had incorrectly named immune institutional entities rather than individual defendants.