Case law

Eaton Corp. v. Appliance Valves Co.

634 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 3, 1984

This case was tried by a very experienced and highly competent trial counsel who were thoroughly qualified to deal with all questions of prior art. … All that is required to show obviousness is that the applicant make his claimed invention merely by applying knowledge clearly present in the prior art.

The City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, the Mayor of the City of Lawrenceburg in his official capacity v. Franklin County, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2019

The parties disagree as to whether Lawrenceburg’s argument that the Agreement is void by statute qualifies as the affirmative defense of illegality. … [31] Second, not only can this result not be what the legislature intended, but it is clearly not what Lawrenceburg intended, either.

Roth v. State ex rel. Kurtz

158 Ind. 242 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1902

No other executive or administrative departments shall be established in such city. * * * Each department shall have power to prescribe rules and regulations not inconsistent with any statute or ordinance, or regulation established … The statute pertaining to the government of the prison in question provided that “all the officers shall hold their respective offices until their successors shall have been elected (or) appointed and qualified.”

Bunker v. National Gypsum Co.

441 N.E.2d 8 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1982

Other evidence was presented, however, which clearly indicates a direct correlation between the number of years of exposure to asbestos and the incidence of asbestosis. … These are well established rules. This Court has repeated and elaborated upon these rules in Sidle v.

Jones v. City of Indianapolis

216 F.R.D. 440 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2003

Lilly, 185 F.R.D. 113, 115 (D.Mass.1999) (“The federal courts have recognized a qualified common-law privilege ... for law enforcement investigatory information.”). … For instance, any testimony sought from IPD personnel involved in the Cole investigation is clearly evaluative, and falls squarely within the investigatory privilege.

Chaney v. Angle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 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 … He alleges he told each of the four defendants he needed protective custody, but he does not clearly say what he told them nor when.

Book v. State

880 N.E.2d 1240 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2008

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … (Ind.1998), our Supreme Court held that a murder defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter because the crying of the five-month-old victim did not constitute the provocation necessary to qualify

DENHAM v. AMCOR FLEXIBLE NORTH AMERICA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 8, 2024

The statute applies only to "employers"; it is well established that Title VII claims cannot be brought against individuals in their individual capacity. Williams v. … ADA Claim The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of a disability.

Todd v. Ehresman

132 Ind. App. 440 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1961

The Purdue National Bank of Lafayette was duly appointed and qualified as Administrator of decedent’s estate. … On the other hand, we hold that they not only may, but that it is clearly their duty to do so, in all proper cases.

Schildmeier v. United States

171 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 1959

their joint and mutual and several last will, which remained unchanged by them, and was effective at decedent’s death as his own last will, and was duly admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Marion County, said widow qualifying … The court construes said will and the separable contract of the spouses embodied therein, and so finds, that no provisions of either the will, *336 or of such contract, establish any intention of the spouses, or had the legal

In the Matter of the Paternity of C.B., A.B. v. R.B.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2013

We will affirm the trial court’s judgment on an issue of child support unless it is clearly erroneous. McGinley-Ellis v. Ellis, 638 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. 1994). … App. 2005) (holding that paying a babysitter while enrolled in school qualifies as a work-related child care expense under the Guidelines).

Katyun Marsh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 08 2015, 10:33 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, … “If a statement involves hearsay within hearsay . . . the statement may still be admitted if each layer of hearsay qualifies under an exception to the hearsay rule.”

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Harris

985 N.E.2d 804 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for Trial Rule 60(B) relief. In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind.2010). … An abuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous, that is, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

Justin Ross Tomlinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2020

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 27 2020, 8:54 am court except for the purpose of establishing … We review the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we will reverse the trial court’s decision only when its action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

Merriweather v. Ashley

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

. § 1915A, the court must review the 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 … He references an investigation, but does not clearly allege who was investigating or what the investigation entailed.

Baller Ex Rel. Baller v. Corle

490 N.E.2d 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1986

Murray had established sufficient credentials for the rendering of his opinion as to the objective consideration of behavior expected of a typical seven-year-old. … Even assuming that Murray qualified as an expert on child behavior because of his nineteen years of experience in grade schools, the majority admits that the information contained in Murray's deposition was not beyond the

Williams v. Maksyn

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2023

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 … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cnty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Bhaidas

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 2025

Bhaidas and Bhaidasna argue that the United States waived sovereign immunity for their claims and that they have adequately alleged unreasonable delay. … Today’s discretionary “action” to hold on the I-485 petition qualifies in ways the one in Iddir did not. See Soni, 103 F.4th at 1272-73.

Comer v. Frazier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2024

1915A, I 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 … Filing a grievance qualifies as “protected activity” for purposes of a First Amendment claim. Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012).

Murphy v. Forest River Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2025

The company argues that Murphy’s tirade disqualified him from ADA protection, that it did not discriminate even if he was qualified, and that Murphy has not established an actionable FMLA claim. … But employers need not provide written notice if their handbook contains leave policies that clearly specify when fitness-for-duty certifications are required. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d)(3).