Case law

United Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Indiana Michigan Power Co.

716 N.E.2d 1007 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1999

Further, the Commission clearly addressed the issue in its order. Record at 300-02; cf. City of Marion v. Antrobus, 448 N.E.2d 325 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) and State ex rel. Hight v. … Moreover, as an administrative agency, the Commission is presumed to be qualified by knowledge and experience. Knox County, 663 N.E.2d at 191 .

Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis

333 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2004

The Controller may deny a license application or renewal only if the applicant: (1) Where applicable, is not a corporation organized by law or authorized and qualified to do business in the state; (2) Has not fully paid the … constitutionality of the ordinance, we believe Chapter 801 in tandem with Chapter 807 do not provide a sufficient guarantee that an aggrieved applicant will receive a hearing before the Controller because the Regulation clearly

Davidson v. Caravan Facilities Management L.L.C.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 17, 2020

Caravan argues that “Davidson, therefore, cannot establish that he was as or more qualified than Ratty, and even if he could, he has no evidence to demonstrate that Caravan’s evidence showing that Ratty was hired over Davidson … Davidson’s failure to promote claim fails to survive summary judgment because he fails to establish that he was as qualified or more qualified than the individuals hired, or that Caravan’s reasons for hiring those other individuals

Jan Dollahan, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2019

Misconduct or errors implicating constitutional issues do not necessarily establish that fundamental error has occurred. Id. … See Ryan, 9 N.E.3d at 672 (holding that “[s]uch correct statement so distanced from an improper one cannot qualify its substance, but it may counteract its harm”).

Anthony Rose v. Martin's Super Markets L.L.C., Martin's Super Markets of Elkhart East L.L.C., Martin's Super Markets of Elkhart L.L.C., and Martin's Super Markets Inc.

120 N.E.3d 234 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

This is good knowledge for all of us to have in our work and personal lives as we visit public establishments. Id. at 119. … However, this is not an admission that it had a duty in this case for the sixty-four seconds after the shooting began, as it is qualified by the phrase “once it knew she’d been injured[.]” Id.

Harris v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Harris did not question his §851 enhancement on direct appeal, the Court need not rely on default as clearly his claim is without merit. … Harris is clearly mistaken as Booker held only that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. Id. at 246. Mr.

ESTATE OF COLE BY PARDUE v. Fromm

941 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 27, 1995

immunity. … This critical difference should not be exaggerated, however, for similar evidence may be considered to establish either level of recklessness.

May Department Stores Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

749 N.E.2d 651 · Indiana Tax Court · May 7, 2001

Associated’s gains did not qualify as business income under the transactional test. Cf. … Therefore, the gains from the sale of Horne’s assets did not qualify as business income under the functional test.

Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc.

621 N.E.2d 1078 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1993

This provision clearly states that liability is limited to the purchase price of the seed, and does not allow any amount for incidental or consequential damages such as Hall Farms' lost profits. … The undisputed evidence establishes that the Act does not permit recovery of the damages claimed in this case.

Conner v. Professional Medical Billing, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 16, 2022

Plaintiff believed that this qualified her for paid leave under the FFCRA. … Federal regulations impose strict requirements on claimants trying to establish “continuing treatment.”

LaCroix v. Lott

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2024

LaCroix does not clearly describe what it is he did that caused Lieutenant Lott to retaliate against him. … Filing a lawsuit qualifies as protected activity, Holleman v. Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2020), and he mentions having filed a small claims suit against Lieutenant Lott about missing property.

ICI BENEFITS CONSORTIUM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2024

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing these elements and therefore must "clearly allege facts demonstrating each element." … Schober, 366 F.3d at 489 ("Mere speculation is not enough to establish an injury in fact.").

Musgrave v. SQUAW CREEK COAL CO.

964 N.E.2d 891 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

The ALJ’s decision was clearly based upon two separate but individually sufficient grounds. … The definition of non-coal wastes clearly refers to wastes that were generated during surface mining activities.

Silich v. Obermiller

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 15, 2023

That is quite to the contrary of the statutory element that the individual defendants’ acts were “clearly outside the scope of [their] employment.” … Instead, the Dolcine court finds the arguments on immunity to be “muddled,” and that it was “ultimately...unnecessary to wade into the immunity thicket” because the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that “his due process

In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

734 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 2010

The option to participate in certain programs doesn’t establish a right to control. … Contractors have a proprietary interest in their routes and can sell them to another qualified driver.

United of Omaha v. Hieber

698 N.E.2d 869 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1998

United argues that the Omaha I decision conclusively established that the only persons entitled to assert detrimental reliance on SPDs are plan participants, not beneficiaries. … State courts have jurisdiction only in suits filed according to § 1132(a)(1)(B) or in suits brought by the State to enforce qualified medical child support orders. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e)(1).

DUNN-LANIER v. INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 2019

Dunn-Lanier has failed to establish the third and fourth prongs of the prima facie case, to wit, that she was rejected for a position for which she was qualified and that less qualified candidates were hired instead. … Dunn-Lanier was clearly more qualified than Ms. Hindsley for the teaching position at School 58. This conclusion is buttressed by the facts regarding Ms.

F. J. v. State

78 Ind. Dec. 454 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1980

Later testimony suggests F.J. was possibly 20 pounds underweight, although as noted earlier her usual weight was never established, nor can we glean from the evidence any clear indication of whether there was a sudden recent … It was apparently a form notice used in dissolution of marriage proceedings, and clearly not effective notice of a hearing on commitment for mental illness. Moreover, despite the fact F.

Ortiz v. State

265 Ind. 549 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1976

We have held that a confession is inadmissible if obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Ashby v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 316 , 354 N.E.2d 192 . … We have often held that a conviction will not be upheld upon evidence merely tending to establish a suspicion of guilt, or that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime, Dunn v.

Witte v. Dowd, Warden

230 Ind. 485 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1951

Since being a “habitual criminal” is not a crime under the Indiana statute but is only a state or status, what effect can the possession of that status by appellant—or any other person—have upon his—or their— immunity from … The court must expound what it finds written, and can not import additional meaning without sufficient indication thereof in the words of the statute with such aids thereto as the established rules of law authorize.