Case law

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.

Demming v. Underwood

943 N.E.2d 878 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2011

Underwood clearly would have breached the fiduciary duties arising out of that relationship by purchasing the Properties for herself without informing Demming that Mrs. Morris was entertaining offers. See Bopp v. … person with whom the licensee is working unless the licensee is assisting that person as a customer without compensation, there is no requirement that an individual compensate a licensee for his or her services in order to qualify

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

Martin v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2022

Appx. 353, 355 (7th Cir. 2019) (inmate’s right to refuse to cooperate with an investigation has not been clearly established in the Seventh Circuit); Daniels v. Seymour, 2020 WL 5405799 (C.D. Ill.) (same); Nelson v. … (prisoner’s right to refuse to be an informant not definitively established in Seventh Circuit). without immunity.”).6 As in Caffey, Mr.

Hubler Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

193 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2000

The authority it cites in support of its position represents a minority view; we rely instead on the established principle that “a showing of strong litigational hardship or inconvenience should be sufficient” to establish … This element reflects concerns about the competency of class counsel and potential conflicts of interest: “(a) the plaintiffs’ attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation

Davis v. Adkins

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2024

To establish liability under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical need. Farmer v. … immunity

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

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.”

Guetig v. State

66 Ind. 94 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

In the ease before us the qualified opinion of each juror objected to was formed upon hearsay evidence or newspaper reports, not upon facts known to the juror, and was evidently of a character that would readily yield to … In our opinion instruction numbered 9 is so clearly right that we do not discuss it. We can scarcely approve of the last sentence of instruction numbered 10; but it contains nothing of which the appellant can complain.

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.

Allen L. Grogg v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2020

App. 2006), we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the stun gun in question was a deadly weapon that was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury when the evidence established … “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom

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

Krutz v. Craig

53 Ind. 561 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1876

For aught that is shown by the record, it might have been made verbally and entered on the order-book by the clerk; but it does appear clearly that no written cause was at that term filed with the motion. … The principle governing such cases is familiar and well established. Skillen v. Jones, 44 Ind. 136 ; Cobble v. Tomlinson, 50 Ind. 550 .

Sigler v. State

700 N.E.2d 809 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1998

It follows that Sigler has failed to establish that the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to the conclusion that the State denied him due process through the knowing use of perjured testimony. Affirmed. … The information which Sigler sought was clearly material to the jury's determination of his guilt, as information about Williams' possible motives in testifying related directly to her credibility.

Browne v. Waldo

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2023

In addition to the evidentiary issues with some of these statements, the statements are protected by qualified privilege. … Browne confuses the asserted qualified privilege with qualified immunity. As qualified immunity is not asserted, Browne’s citation and argument regarding it are immaterial.

Z.T. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2018

shall not be Dec 05 2018, 9:07 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … To qualify as a fundamental error, it must be so prejudicial to the rights of the party that fair proceedings are impossible. Id.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2017

Thomas also points out that [t]here was no showing by a qualified witness that the record was made at or near the time, or from information transmitted by someone with … It is an abuse of discretion if the trial court’s decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Pearson v. Hahn

170 Ind. App. 361 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1976

On July 30,1971, Barton (one of Fred’s ex-partners) qualified as executor of Fred’s estate. On January 29, 1973, Bank was appointed administrator d/b/n following Barton’s resignation. … of the deceased partner. *372 *371 Before we state our precise holding in this case, we think it important to state clearly when we do not hold.

Most Reverend Noll v. Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co.

117 Ind. App. 554 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1946

directions for the benefit of all of the orphans of said county; that the Board of Commissioners of Allen County took over the institution known *560 as the Allen County Orphans’ Home; and that appellee is the only one qualified … Such postponement can only arise from language used which clearly and definitely destroys the vested estate — language which will force the mind to such conclusion.”

Evans v. Buffington Harbor River Boats, LLC

799 N.E.2d 1103 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2003

Wood's testimony did not conclusively establish that Lorean would require a knee replacement in the next five years. He clearly stated that if she had a surgery in the next five years that she would need a second. … Here, the evidence clearly establishes that Design Workshop drafted the plans for the landscaping, which included the concrete bands.