Case law

State Ex Rel McNutt v. Orcutt

211 Ind. 523 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1936

There is no public policy that can qualify the public policy upon which rests the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the sovereign. … The foregoing cases clearly establish the rule in this state that a condemnor of land under a declaration of appropriation which purports to take all interest in the land, does as a matter of law, take all legal interests

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.

Hicks v. Fielman

421 N.E.2d 716 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1981

It was possible prior to 1973 to qualify alimony payments under section 71(a)(1) of the IRC; by enacting § 10(a), the Legislature made it possible to continue doing so. … Finally, the term "maintenance" as used in the dissolution decree clearly refers to child support.

HOWARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2026

Special expertise is required to establish the medical cause of such a condition. Spinnenweber v. … He is not qualified to testify as to a causal relationship between the alleged incident and any medical or mental health condition he has at present.

Williams v. State

895 N.E.2d 377 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2008

9(G)(1), said information shall be omitted [or redacted] from the filed document and set forth on a separate accompanying document on light green paper conspicuously marked “Not For Public Access” or “Confidential” and clearly … Rather, we will adhere to the standard that we establish today in Scott .

Kirby v. State

774 N.E.2d 523 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2002

The determination of whether a witness qualifies for the exemption found in clause (3) is within the trial court’s discretion and is subject to review for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 256-257. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating *540 evidence is both significant and clearly-supported by the record.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Ic.G. and Ib.G. (Minor Children) and M.G. (Mother) and B.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2017

Standard of Review [12] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights proceedings is well established. … In making that determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229–30.

Stetler v. Shalala

883 F. Supp. 1180 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 1995

However, SSR 82-61 clearly refers to particular past occupations, not general classifications. … Of course, only a doctor is qualified to testify as to what “normal” x-rays mean, but even a layman knows that x-rays can tell only a narrow slice of the story.

Thomas Spicer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2019

On appeal, “a defendant claiming that he was denied his right to allocution carries a strong burden in establishing his claim.” Id. at 429. … However, our supreme court has held that a young age does not “automatically” qualify as a significant mitigator. Gross v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1141 n.4 (Ind. 2002).

Wurster v. State

708 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1999

The statute clearly imposes the duty on the association as a separate entity — not on the officers or members of the association. Day, 341 N.E.2d at 211-12 . … Venue must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may be established by circumstantial evidence. Buzzard v. State, 669 N.E.2d 996, 997 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).

JOHNSON v. SIBLEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2019

And when an officer’s use of deadly force is challenged as being excessive, the officer is entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense “unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue.” … immunity defense.

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Montana

464 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2006

A common enterprise was clearly what was intended here by Defendants in offering and selling these investment contracts. … There is no requirement to prove scienter to establish a violation of this statute.

Helcher v. Dearborn County

500 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2007

Judge Posner likened the standard to the “clearly-erroneous standard ... … Clearly, this submission fails to qualify as a “detailed explanation,” as required by the Ordinance. 21 Based upon these factors, we cannot conclude that the Board’s assertion that alternatives had not been sufficiently investigated

Heilman v. Shanklin

60 Ind. 424 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1878

Kumler, to be used by them in inducing persons and qualified voters in said district to vote for Heilman for “ the office.” … It is settled clearly and conclusively, we think, but adversely to the position of the appellant’s counsel, by the provisions of our code of practice.

Davidson v. Koehler

76 Ind. 398 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

termination of th& preceding particular estate, the remainder is unquestionably vested.’ * * * * In 4fch Kent’s Commentaries, 282, it. is said: ‘This has now become the settled technical construction of the language and the established … These provisions of the order of the court, which were fully authorized by the special act, show very clearly that no confirmation of the sales by the court was requisite or necessary to the validity of such sales, or to

Nickles v. Heleine

460 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 2005

At some point after filing suit, Plaintiff determined that He-leine may qualify as an uninsured or un-derinsured motorist, as he had coverage against Plaintiffs claim amounting to only *888 $50,000. … Lastly, the moving party need not positively disprove the nonmov-ant’s case; rather, it may prevail by establishing the lack of evidentiary support for that case. See Celotex Corp. v.

Marc M. Lindsey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 02 2014, 9:19 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … to limit his sentence to a term of one year, which is below the advisory sentence for a Class D felony.1 Furthermore, the record indicates that Lindsey had a substantial criminal history and, as a result, he did not qualify

Boston v. State

947 N.E.2d 436 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2011

Motion to Suppress Boston also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood test results because the State failed to establish a proper foundation. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Cochran v. State, 843 N.E.2d 980, 982-83 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied.

SECO CHEMICALS, INC., ETC. v. Stewart

169 Ind. App. 624 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1976

On an appeal from a trial to the court, we may not reverse the trial court’s findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52 (A). … The parties cite Indiana cases establishing when our courts must enforce a liquidated damages clause and when a discharged employee must mitigate damages.

Kurtis L. Shorter v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law … [21] As far back as 1948, the United States Supreme Court has held that If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor,