Case law

McCoy v. Richards

623 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 11, 1984

Thus, the Richards argue that the act of executing a lease should qualify as a “use” of the mineral interest. … Once the criteria for establishing adverse possession have been met, the disseisor becomes possessed of a vested right or title to the property without the necessity of further action on the part of the disseisor.

William Martez Wills v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2018

A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … [27] A claim of prosecutorial misconduct requires us to make the following determinations: first, we determine whether the prosecutor’s conduct qualifies as misconduct, and second, whether any misconduct

Stevonta D. Hill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2018

[7] On August 9, 2016, Hill testified before a grand jury under a grant of use immunity. … [20] Moreover, the State emphasizes the “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” language of section (e) of the statute while ignoring section (d), which clearly requires a hearing on an enhancement after “

Constantinos P. Angelopoulos v. Theodore P. Angelopoulos, Neptunia Incorporated, Transmar Corporation, Didiac Establishment, Beta Steel Corporation, and Top Gun Investment Corporation, II.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2013

The Greek courts clearly rejected Constantinos’s claim on its merits. Pursuant to the doctrines of both comity and res judicata, Constantinos cannot now relitigate this issue in Indiana courts. … claims that the deposition materials should have remained confidential because the trial court had already approved of the agreed-to protective order, which he 19 claims would qualify

Gates v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 2020

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 … Only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). Mr.

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Public Service Company

Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2018

Designated vs. described The parties dispute what qualifies as an eligible project under Section 2, which requires both designation and approval of the project in a seven- year plan the Commission approves under Section … And it generally endorsed NIPSCO’s proposal to establish objective ascertainable criteria for selecting specific projects within “project group” categories.

Guzik v. Town of St. John

875 N.E.2d 258 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2007

John Police Department as he was not a rank and file officer and therefore not entitled to return to any previous position he may have held with that Department since (1) he did not qualify as a rank and file officer and … More specifically, in Kimbrell , this court stated: The record clearly indicates that Merit Board has no procedure for the review of voluntary resignations of police officers.

Worman Enterprises, Inc. v. The Boone County Solid Waste Management District

805 N.E.2d 369 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2004

The Boone County Solid Waste Management District was established for Boone County either by designation or by default. … Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution imposes two requirements upon statutes that grant unequal privileges or immunities to differing classes of persons.

Saundra S. Wahl v. State of Indiana

36 N.E.3d 1147 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

We will first establish whether Wahl has met her initial two-part inquiry of prejudice. A. … A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before it” or if it “misinterprets or misapplies the law.”

In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury

854 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 1994

(B) To qualified personnel for the purpose of conducting scientific research management audits, financial audits, or program evaluation, but such personnel may not identify, directly or indirectly, any individual patient … [The Hospital], in its capacity as a custodian of patient records, clearly fails to fall within the plain language of either prong of this definition, thereby excluding it from those authorized to claim the privilege on behalf

Estate of Williams v. SOUTHERN IND. GAS AND ELEC.

551 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 7, 2008

The words, “growing out of the performance of the Contract,” are clearly broader in scope than “the doing of any work.” … Clearly, it would be liable for such fees.

Depeyster v. Town of Santa Claus

729 N.E.2d 183 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2000

However, the power of a court to issue a mandatory injunction as a means of enforcing restrictive covenants is well-established. Highland v. … Here, the restrictive covenant clearly provided for attorney fees as follows: 26. ENFORCEMENT AND LIABILITY OF ASSOCIATION.

Carson v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2022

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it 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 from such … “Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation in combination when each alone would not do so.” Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006).

Manning v. Hershberger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2024

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 … established or otherwise.”).

State v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

224 Ind. 17 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1945

It seems to us that the phi *34 losophy which qualifies the burden permitted would also qualify the discrimination forbidden and apply the prohibitions only to such discrimination as would prejudice or harm the’ interstate … Wood Preserving Corp., supra, originated in Indiana and clearly points the answer in the case before us.

Jones v. State Wide Aluminum, Inc.

246 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 2003

Jones was covered by two ERISA qualified health plans, State Wide, 1 and Partners, an HMO, each of which decided the other was obligated to pay. … See King, 218 F.3d at 723 (citing prior case law for the well established conclusion that design decisions fall outside the purview of an administrator’s fiduciary duty); Ames, 170 F.3d at 757 (same).

Christian Q. White v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2026

In short, White has failed to establish that his alleged care for Diane was significant or clearly supported by the record. … Murder qualifies as an enumerated offense under I.C. § 35-50-2-11(b)(1) because it is “a felony . . . that resulted in death or serious bodily injury.”

Lisa Martin v. American Senior Communities, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2012

Pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 803(2), an exited utterance qualifies as an exception to hearsay. … Given the undisputed existence of ASC’s termination policy, and the parties’ disagreement over the events alleged by ASC to fall within the terms of that policy, a genuine issue of material fact clearly remains.

Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Insurance

96 Ind. 510 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1883

Although the ques *518 tion, in the manner here presented, has not been before this court until now, the cases above cited, we think, clearly establish the rule to be, that before a party is entitled to a judgment for want … We are of the opinion that the facts stated in the petition were clearly sufficient to authorize the appointment of the receiver.

Ganus v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2019

Creasy failed to recognize that the deadline for the filing of a petition for transfer was established by the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, not by a court order. Mr. … While there are exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity, none are applicable here. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Ill.