Case law

In Re Cg

933 N.E.2d 494 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

Consequently, Ordower, Duran, and Martinez did not qualify as de facto custodians when DCS took custody of C.G. … Dalton testified that if she determines that she is not qualified to work with C.G. on sexual abuse issues, she will refer C.G. to another therapist.

Arlton v. Schraut

936 N.E.2d 831 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2010

The Medical Care Providers claim that the trial court properly refused to admit the enlarged photos, arguing that Arlton failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the *837 images. … Specifically, they claim that Arl-ton was not qualified as an expert witness and therefore did not possess the knowledge and skill necessary to interpret the angiogram exhibits and "create" the images.

OLSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2026

However, Olson's response brief clearly identifies his disability as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and the Court is free to consider materials or elaborations in a response brief "so long as those materials … (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing

Monroe Financial Corp. v. DiSilvestro

529 N.E.2d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1988

A judgment is clearly erroneous if not supported by the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are clearly erroneous if unsupported by the findings of fact. Lafayette Realty Corp. v. Vonnegut's, Inc. (1984) 1st Dist. … If the facts of this case do not show a detrimental change of position, I am at a loss to know what facts would so qualify.

Bontrager v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

829 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2011

The court disagreed, finding that the “unequivocal” language of Ind.Code § 12-15-21-3(3), in conjunction with the Indiana regulations interpreting the statute, established that the requirements under Indiana law were the … The answer is clearly, “Yes.”

Mansfield v. Colvin

224 F. Supp. 3d 683 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 1, 2016

According to Social Security Ruling 96-6p, “[s]tate agency medical... consultants are highly qualified physicians.. .who are experts in *686 the evaluation of the medical issues in disability claims under the Act.” … The ALJ bases her finding that Mansfield is not entirely credible on alleged inconsistencies in the record, but the ensuing recitation of pieces of *689 Mansfield’s medical history does not clearly indicate what was inconsistent

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.

Smith v. Galipeau

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2023

Smith has of the court must be presented in the form of a motion which clearly and concisely states the relief he is seeking and the reason he believes he is entitled to the relief sought. Mr. … Filing a lawsuit qualifies as protected activity for purposes of a First Amendment claim. Holleman v. Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2020). However, Mr.

Marion County Auditor v. Revival Temple Apostolic Church

898 N.E.2d 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2008

The trial court’s declaration that the tax sale was void ab initio clearly intended to require Marion County to refund the repurchase price of the property. … See Ind.Code § 6-1.1-11-1 ("An exemption is a privilege which may be waived by a person who owns tangible property that would qualify for the exemption.

Leibowitz v. Moore

436 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1982

"(A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee. … This is because DR 2-106 was designed to establish the minimal conduct allowed an attorney regarding the legal fees that he charges his client.

Andrew C. Kesling, individually and as Trustee of the Andrew C. Kesling Trust v. Peter C. Kesling

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2012

We will conclude a judgment is clearly erroneous if no evidence supports the findings, the findings fail to support the judgment, or if the trial court applies the incorrect legal standard. … The court held that although “the ‘grantor trust rules’ of section 671 et seq.” are concerned “with actual command over the property taxed,” “[s]ubchapter S was enacted as a remedial measure to relieve qualifying small

Wirtz v. Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc.

307 F. Supp. 462 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 3, 1969

The plaintiff’s position is clearly substantiated by the scheme of the Act and the cases decided thereunder. Title IV of the Act provides one remedy for a violation — a new election. … (Article II, Section 1(g) ) (Quoted in Exhibit II to the affidavit, which is a copy of the letter informing the affiant he was not qualified to run for the post of director.) Exhibit A to the affidavit of K. M.

Printpack, Inc. v. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS UNION LOCAL 761-S

988 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 1997

In order to establish a violation under § 158(b)(4), a plaintiff must satisfy two separate prongs. … According to plaintiff, such acts of sabotage clearly indicated that the letter posed present threats to Printpack’s customers about the quality of the company’s product.

Gilliam v. State

650 N.E.2d 45 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1995

Gilliam clearly initiated the communication and his statements were preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to have counsel present. … Gilliam has failed to establish that, but for his counsel's alleged errors, the result of his trial would have been different. Gilliam has not met his burden to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

MCCARTHY v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 4, 2024

When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Watts v.

Paul J. Elmer and Carol A. N. Elmer v. Indiana Department of Revenue

42 N.E.3d 185 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 1, 2015

See also Filip, 879 N.E.2d at 1081 (explaining that a party’s designation of evidence may appear in its brief so long as the party clearly identifies the listed materials as designated evidence). … To qualify for a business expense deduction, an item must (1) be paid or incurred during the taxable year, (2) be for carrying on any trade or business, (3) be an expense, (4) be an ordinary expense, and (5) be a necessary

Federal Insurance v. Stroh Brewery Co.

35 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 1998

To establish estoppel an insured must show prejudice. Protective Ins. Co. v. … However, both parties have come to diametrically opposed conclusions as to what that clearly controlling precedent indicates.

Family & Social Services Administration v. Community Care Centers, Inc.

641 N.E.2d 1012 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1994

A facility serving three or more developmentally disabled individuals must provide Rule 7 treatment, which includes retaining a qualified mental retardation professional, developing and implementing an habilitation program … Given the evidence, the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and support the judgment. C.

MADDOX

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2026

This section clearly applies to Maddox. … Serious questions of sovereign immunity and separation of powers arise if prisoners may obtain benefits for which Congress has plainly stated they are ineligible. Consider sovereign immunity.

Roger A. Carter v. Jennifer Carter (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2019

James Houlihan, a qualified expert, conducted a business valuation of DBConnect and testified at trial. … TT, which he alleges “clearly articulates the closing costs of the property of $33,422,” Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 7.