Case law

Brier v. Centurion Health of Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2025

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “[L]iability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Gable v. Curtis, 673 N.E.2d 805, 810 (Ind. Ct.

In the Custody of: T.G. (Minor Child) and by J.D. (Father) v. M.G. and D.G., and Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2019

While there is no doubt that Maternal Grandfather has been present for much of Child’s life, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Maternal Grandfather had been Child’s primary caregiver … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JC-1906 | March 7, 2019 Page 17 of 18 [24] In short, we conclude that to establish de facto custodian status, the evidence must establish more than simply

Cruse v. HOOK-SUPERX, INC.

561 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2008

If he establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to CVS to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Id. … Like the termination claim, in order to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote on the basis of race, Cruse must demonstrate that he 1) is a member of a protected class; 2) applied for and was qualified for a position

Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Carter

614 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 2007

. § 1344 (f)(2). 5 The Court then outlined the factual questions to be resolved on remand: (1) Did the Defendants’ activities qualify under the maintenance exemption? … IDEM established a QHEI score of less than 51 as the threshold for poor habitat for aquatic organisms. All Fawn River stations were above that threshold. 2.

Mode v. Beasley

143 Ind. 306 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

“It is a well established principle that courts will take judicial notice of the history of the country and of the State. … In this we think they are clearly right. And if, by virtue of this provision, the petition must be filed with the board, it is equally true that the remonstrance must also be filed before the board of commissioners.

Patricia Mowery and Harold R. Mowery, Jr. v. Arron L. Hofmeister, Individually and as Employee/Agent of Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, and Marathon Petroleum Co., LP

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … A strict, literal application of the qualifying phrase “appropriately preserved during trial ” in Rule 59(A) would preclude a party from presenting an appellate challenge of insufficient evidence despite

Banks v. State

841 N.E.2d 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2006

Upon notification the defendant does not qualify for Tippecanoe County Community Corrections or is rejected he will be transported to the Indiana Department of Corrections to serve his executed sentence. … When a trial court fails to find a mitigator clearly supported by the record, however, a reasonable belief arises that the trial court improperly overlooked that factor. Id.

City of Kokomo v. Kern

852 N.E.2d 623 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2006

"[The Court's] responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government; this does not require a grant of immunity for employee grievances not afforded by the … I also agree that they have clearly set forth the applicable law.

In Re the Marriage of: Jeffrey E. Nelson v. Julie A. Nelson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2020

And when Husband offered expert testimony regarding his oil interests, the trial court found that Husband’s witness did not qualify as an expert and excluded his testimony. … Husband asserts “that the payments to Husband clearly predated the parties’ marriage” in 2012. Appellant’s Br. at 31.

In the Matter of the Expungement of J.S.: State of Indiana v. J.S.

48 N.E.3d 356 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2015

to lower the probability and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles throughout the United States, and to ensure that persons responsible for driving commercial motor vehicles are qualified … Although Indiana law does not deny Hand the issuance of a restricted CDL, the BMV has established that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 16A04-1503-MI-89 | December 28, 2015 Page 16 of 22

THOMPSON v. MAJCHROWICZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 13, 2022

Here, based on the preliminary injunction that Thompson sought, his goal is clearly to set aside or at least bar the enforcement of the state court's order. … The second ground is the "improper purpose clause," which establishes that an action may not be taken to delay, harass, or increase litigation costs. See id.

In re the Adoption of S.M.M., T.M.S. v. K.L.M. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2016

Factual findings are clearly erroneous if the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them and a judgment is clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and the conclusions … This court has previously defined “unfit” as “[u]nsuitable; not adopted or qualified for a particular use or service” or “[m]orally unqualified; incompetent.”

Anthony Gibson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2018

8:48 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … After an extensive review of the trial transcript, we find no clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process.

Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis

235 Ind. 70 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1956

But to say that their findings of fact may be made conclusive where constitutional rights of liberty and property are involved, although the evidence clearly establishes that the findings are wrong and constitutional rights … This witness qualified as an expert on valuations, and after detailing how he arrived at various valuations, testified that it was his opinion that the fair value of the physical properties of the Company was $32,400,--000

Eric M. Kyner v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … We accept the post- conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but accord 3 conclusions of law no deference. Johnson, 832 N.E.2d at 992.

Lminggio

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2026

Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 913-14 (10th Cir. 2012)).3 3 Of note, “for any term of solitary confinement lasting more than days but less than years, qualified immunity will often apply to claims for damages. … Long, 482 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases establishing that holding inmates in a feces and blood covered cell without a working sink or toilet for anywhere from thirty-six hours to six days was inhumane

Dorsey v. St. Joseph Co. Jail Officials

910 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 18, 1996

The Court noted the presumption that every state’s sovereign immunity from, and all state employees’ personal exposure to, § 1983 liability for constitutional torts was clearly established when the lawsuit was filed (even … (Cf 28 CFR § 541.21 (provides for establishment of administrative detention for federal inmates who need protection at the discretion of prison staff)).

Pattee v. Nexus RVs LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2022

Further, Seventh Circuit precedent clearly establishes that arguments which are perfunctory or underdeveloped are waived. Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC, 839 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2016). … The alleged misrepresentation in this case clearly stems from Mr.

BOWLING v. NETFLIX, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023

threat" of litigation, which can be shown by objective facts establishing an identifiable resolve to litigate. … In addition, to be subject to work product immunity, the documents at issue must have been created in response to "a substantial and significant threat" of litigation, which can be shown by "'objective facts establishing

ANDERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS v. ROKITA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023

with a checklist of the immunizations the child refused for religious reasons. … The court reasoned that the statement merely outlined the government's position on immunizations and did "not require the plaintiffs to affiliate" with the immunization statement. Id. at 619.