Case law

Brian J. Shapiro v. Hamilton County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 27, 2024

The version of Subsection F effective for the 2017 assessment date states: If an individual who is receiving the deduction provided by this section or who otherwise qualifies property for a deduction … But just as clearly, the definitions are distinct and do not overlap, indicating that they do not have the same or identical meaning.

Sue Williams, Linda Wood, and Claude-Wood, as the Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Rachel A. Wood v. Indiana Department of Correction, Corizon, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2020

Lupus is a “systemic autoimmune disease that occurs when your body’s immune system attacks your own tissues and organs.” … These elementary principles establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration.

Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Scoles

435 N.E.2d 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 1982

In support of this argument SIGECO contends that all of the evidence established that Clark did stop before contact with Scoles. … This altered condition, clearly understood by Clark and Scoles alike, required Clark to stop, and permitted Scoles to walk back and forth across the road.

In the Matter of: N.S. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services, and C.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2016

We reverse only upon a showing that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. Id. … Initially, we note that “multiple” means “more than one,” meaning that two incidents would qualify as multiple incidents.

JOHNSON v. ALVEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2021

After showing the objective component, a plaintiff must next establish "a subjective showing of a defendant's culpable state of mind," and "the state of mind necessary to establish liability is deliberate indifference to … Qualified Immunity Defense As discussed above, there is no constitutional violation, therefore, the Court need not address the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense to Mr.

Pollard v. State

439 N.E.2d 177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1982

Shultz established that driving does invoke the implied consent statute even though, as here, no request for a test is made. Ind. … This, coupled with other descriptive evidence of Pollard’s actions, clearly is sufficient evidence of intoxication. (B) Causation.

Ronald F. Graham v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2014, 10:10 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … At one point, Officer Jones clearly observed Graham’s face. The chase ended when Graham lost control of his vehicle, which entered a field, went airborne, and landed out of view.

Court View Centre, LLC v. Witt

753 N.E.2d 75 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2001

"If an old building burns to the ground, the actual value is commonly established by reference to its fair market value less the value of the land on which the building sits." Id. at 353 . … Clearly, Kalka's opinion was based almost entirely upon guesswork. As such, Kal-ka's testimony lacked a proper foundation and was properly excluded by the trial court.

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Insurance

588 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2008

Preliminary Injunction Requirements “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he.is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief … Gregory, Judge Hand famously wrote that "a transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation.

Harmon v. Best

174 Ind. 323 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1910

The receiver filed in said court a plea in abatement, alleging therein that plaintiff’s wages, which he sued to recover, had been garnished in a proceeding brought before a duly qualified commissioner of the United States … The principle governing such seizure is clearly settled by the decision in In re Tyler (1893), 149 U. S. 164, 182 , 13 Sup. Ct. 785, 37 L. Ed. 689 .” 3. The case of Embry v. Palmer (1882), 107 U. S. 3 , 2 Sup.

Cooper v. State

854 N.E.2d 831 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

More specifically, the defendant must establish not only the grounds for the misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error. Booher, 773 N.E.2d at 817; see also Johnson v. … Id. 8 qualified Cooper for a life sentence was resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony.

Alexander v. PSB Lending Corp.

800 N.E.2d 984 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2003

Independent Realty originated the second mortgage loans and charged the alleged excessive origination fee directly from the Drakes and Simms, respectively, a personal stake and potential injury caused by those Defendants is clearly … We do not determine if the April 10, 2002, letter qualified as a written interpretation as contemplated by the statute, or if the letter's substantive conclusions regarding the IUCCC were accurate.

Dion Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

A trial court abuses its Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-542 | August 16, 2018 Page 4 of 10  discretion by ruling in a way clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and … monitoring is one of the negative consequences for failing to successfully complete a drug court program); Meadows, 2 N.E.3d at 792–94 (noting that deferral programs provide “an opportunity for those qualified

Andriakos v. University of Southern Indiana

867 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 1992

When further questioned about the body’s immune response he had incorrect data base. … The employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The prima facie case has four elements.

David E. Proffitt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2018

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … The error claimed must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.

Clark v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

694 N.E.2d 1230 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 24, 1998

However, the fact that a decision is committed to the State Board’s subjective judgment does not. mean that the decision is immune from judicial review. See Corey v. … The evidence in this case clearly demonstrated that the greater part of the “basement” was full of apartments and constructed similarly to the upper floors.

Smith v. Indiana State Board of Health

158 Ind. App. 445 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1973

Richardson was selected and qualified as Special Judge. … We have hereinabove held that this first contempt action was civil in nature and the authorities cited herein establish that damages or fines must be compensatory and supported by substantial evidence.

Jefferson v. Bailey

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2021

To state a claim for failure to protect, a plaintiff must establish “the defendant had actual knowledge of an impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred … Yelling at the attackers was clearly not deliberately indifferent. Mr. Jefferson argues Officer Bailey should have also called for assistance from fellow officers.

Monica Dycus v. State of Indiana

90 N.E.3d 1215 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and 2 Pirtle v. … Additionally, documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records. Id. at 311, n.1.

BANKHEAD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2026

Bankhead did not throw urine, the record clearly shows that the Defendants had a need to use force to restore order. See McCottrell, 933 F.3d at 663. Mr. … Bankhead's Eighth Amendment rights, the Court does not discuss the Defendants' defense of qualified immunity. IV.