Case law

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.

Tulsi Sawlani, M.D. v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2025

Statutes are “clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. … And the fact that the Taxpayers’ home is in a gated community with a security guard does not itself establish that the entire plot of land is curtilage.

Cantwell v. Hudnut

419 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 1976

Plaintiffs contend this is a 39% dilution and clearly impermissible. … Based upon the 1970 census the four at-large councilmen would qualify to serve on the special district councils under IC 18 — 4^1-2(m) as amended. The 1970 data is all that is currently available. 5 .

Smith v. Ford Motor Co.

908 F. Supp. 590 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 24, 1995

Second, Ford claims that after concluding that the affidavit of Franklin did not establish Franklin’s expertise in the area of automotive design of fuel systems, the court erred by accepting opinions from Franklin that clearly … Because this Court acknowledged that it did not have enough information from the affidavit to prove Franklin was qualified to testify as a design expert under the ruling in Dau-bert, Ford argues that Franklin’s reports about

Warsco v. Preferred Technical Group, Inc.

252 B.R. 459 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 2000

To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” … The terms of the Note Purchase Agreement clearly conditioned LLC’s obligation to purchase PTG’s Note upon LLC’s acquisition of the Debtor’s assets.

Hart v. State

220 Ind. 469 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1942

The receipt above quoted clearly shows that the $25 involved was a payment on the mortgage. Only the treasurer was authorized to receive that payment. … There are cases however where a special or qualified property is sufficient to sustain the charge. 29 C. J. S. *484 Embezzlement § 8, p. 676, citing Davis v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 213, 222 , 147 N. E. 766, 770 .

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana

971 N.E.2d 71 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2012

Accordingly, we have said that due process requires that a penal statute “clearly define its prohibitions.” Brown, 868 N.E.2d at 467. … If the vehicle Lock was operating qualifies as a “motorized bicycle” then he was not operating a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the driving while suspended statute.

Brandon Mockbee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2017

Specifically, he argues that his prior convictions are too old and not “serious enough to qualify as prior convictions for purposes of Indiana’s habitual offender statute.” Appellant’s Br. at 22. … [22] Similarly, “[t]o establish standing pursuant to Article 1, Section 11, our supreme court has stated that ‘a defendant must establish ownership, control, possession, or interest in the premises searched

Tony Lawrence Richey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2023

Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Richey had committed an SVF-qualifying offense; and 3. … “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law.” Id.

The Estate of Rose Graves v. Anonymous Nursing Home

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2012

Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited May 30 2012, 8:44 am before any court except for the purpose of establishing … On June 11, 2009, the IDOI reversed its earlier determination and found that the Nursing Home was, in fact, a qualified provider under the Act.

COUCH v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2024

If a petitioner cannot establish one of the Strickland prongs, the Court need not consider the other. Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). … Couch argues that Love holds that Indiana battery resulting in bodily injury is not a crime of violence, but Love clearly states that a touching resulting in bodily injury, which is required by the statute, "is enough for

Book v. State Office Building Commission

238 Ind. 120 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1958

the invalidating facts; 6 and its invalidity must be clearly shown. 7 A statement by Judge Crumpacker in Scoopmire v. … E. 2d 159 ; hence, it cannot be said that the Legislature would not have passed the Act had it known that members of that body were not qualified to serve as members of the Commission.

Irving Materials, Inc. v. Coal, Ice, Building Material & Supply Drivers, Heavy Haulers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 716

779 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 1992

Vernon’s award therefore does not violate any established law or legal precedent. See id. at 44. 18 Irving also has failed to show that Morris is not a “safe driver.” … If they fail to agree within five (5) working days from the date of said written notice, they shall jointly request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to furnish a list of five (5) persons qualified to act as

Henson v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2022

Lastly, the defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they never knowingly violated the law and only terminated Henson’s employment due to his performance. ECF 90 at 18-20. … established Seventh Circuit precedent.

INDIANA HS ATHLETIC ASS'N v. Reyes

659 N.E.2d 158 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 1996

[Reyes] has failed to establish that there is, in his particular case, circumstances [sic] showing that an undue hardship would result from enforcement of the IHSAA Eight-Semester Rule. … Application for a hardship exception may be made by any student who believes that he or she may qualify.

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)).

MARSHALL v. ANDIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2025

But the designated evidence clearly shows that the other inmate ignored Sgt. Kaffenberger's order to get down on the ground, instead opting to attack Mr. Marshall. … immunity.

McDowell v. North

24 Ind. App. 435 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1899

Appellee qualified as his administrator, is such administrator, and received said notes, accounts, and books, as such, from decedent’s family. … While the evidence is voluminous, we have examined it as to the points raised, and are clearly satisfied that there is evidence in the record upon which the court could rest its several findings.

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 2020

Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2019) (recognizing clearly established Eighth Amendment right of inmates “not to be forced to live surrounded by their own and others’ excrement”); Johnson v. … He believes this document establishes his “titleholder status,” as a “Moorish American” citizen.

Kevin Derek Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court misinterpreted the law or if its decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. … Rather, [Riley] simply asserts that Baird could not offer a precise rate of error in the application of established document examination techniques[.]” (Appellee’s Br. at 19.)