Case law

Gabina Hernandez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Oct 23 2014, 9:02 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral … R. 602), trans. denied; see also Pritchard, 810 N.E.2d at 760 (providing that witnesses clan clearly testify to things that are within their personal knowledge).

Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.

997 N.E.2d 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2013

But we agree with the Court of Appeals majority that Kesling has established an issue of fact as to her fraud claim based on the salesperson’s statements. … A criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague “if its prohibitions are not clearly defined,” or “its terms invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.” Klein v.

Betty J. Angel v. Kent H. Powelson and Marjorie A. Powelson

977 N.E.2d 434 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2012

Nevertheless, a party should designate materials with “sufficient specificity to identify the relevant portions of a document[,]” and [t]he only requirement as to placement is that the designation clearly identify listed … answer and counterclaim in their designated evidence was improper because those pleadings were unverified, we acknowledge that our Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[u]nsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify

Tweedall v. Fritz

987 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 1997

The July 26, 1995 hearing, the written statement of reasons, the evidentiary hearing, and the grievance procedures clearly comport with due process standards. See Vukadinovich v. … For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie ease, the claim nonetheless fails.

City of Indianapolis v. Armour

918 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2009

That connection fee would be paid in a single, lump sum payment by all affected property owners, although in "special cases" a property owner might qualify for a five-year installment plan. Id. at 4 . … That position is contrary to well established equal protection law.

Burris v. State

558 N.E.2d 1067 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1990

Second, the record establishes failure to investigate mitigation. … Clearly, this total absence of advocacy falls outside Strickland's "wide range of professionally competent assistance." 867 F.2d at 368 .

Davis v. Sexton, County Treasurer

210 Ind. 138 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1936

Money on deposit, checks, and drafts are not moneyed capital in competition with national banks, and clearly not considered so under the amendment of the statute. … If this could be done, then the shares of the non-residents would clearly be taxed at a greater rate than those of the resident owner.

Angel M Mohr v. Star A Johnston

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2025

Indiana | Opinion 25A-TR-59 | July 9, 2025 Page 5 of 19  about her alleged misrepresentations, argued that she had not violated her duties as personal representative, and contended that Mohr was not qualified … “If the language of the will is unambiguous and clearly expresses the testator’s intent, the language must govern.” Id.

WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE v. ROKITA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

While it may be established that Ms. … It clearly misstates the proffered opinion of Dr.

Davis v. Lievers

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2021

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 … To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, [the plaintiff] must, at minimum, allege facts sufficient to establish that the defendants possessed a total unconcern for [his] welfare in the face of serious risks

NOVIT v. METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WARREN TOWNSHIP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2022

However, the Court agrees that his testimony establishes that Dr. … All parties agree that White is not qualified to testify on medical matters.

Melvin Hall v. Bradley Shaw, Giovanni Narducci, and Central Indiana Protection Agency, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2020

Because Hall does not dispute that the evaluation of a consumer complaint with the Attorney General’s office qualifies as a quasi-judicial proceeding, we consequently agree with Defendants that Hall … The lack of a quoted statement does not prevent us from Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2533 | May 21, 2020 Page 20 of 25  determining that the statements, as alleged, clearly impute

Grimes v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

116 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2000

Under NSRC’s interpretation of Waymire, compliance with these regulations preclude the *1001 Plaintiffs negligence suit and essentially make it immune to FELA suits arising out of accidents that occur when employees in the … question to resolve here at least preliminarily is a classical standard application of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 51 , to a railroad premises injury to a railroad employee at a time and place where the railroad employee was clearly

Spinks v. McBride

858 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 1994

Generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome. Id. at 646. … Billiott was only given use immunity in exchange for his testimony, but he could still be tried for assisting a criminal.

A.C. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2018

10 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing … We reverse only for an abuse of discretion, that is, a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-738 | November 16, 2018 Page 9 of 11  decision that is clearly against the logic and effect

Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2012

Whatley appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction on the grounds that RCC did not qualify as a “youth program center.” … The report did indicate it was printed in 2008, but the report is clearly referring to an incident in which a controlled buy took place in 2003.

Sanchez v. State

732 N.E.2d 165 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2000

[I]f intoxication, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, renders that individual so completely non compos men-tis that he has no ability to form intent, then under our constitution and under the firmly established principles … The Court concluded that because the intoxication defense had not gained “sufficiently uniform and permanent allegiance, to qualify as fundamental” the right to present evidence of intoxication was not protected under the

Jacob Fuller v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2013

Prosecutor: You’re gonna testify without a grant of immunity? … Fuller has demonstrated no abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence; nor has he established prosecutorial misconduct.

United States v. Tolson

760 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 1991

Tolson has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his offense of conviction. … Delvecchio, 920 F.2d 810, 813 (11th Cir.1991) (error to sentence defendant as if career offender simply because he came close to qualifying).

DARDEN v. MARTINI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2024

In cases involving the conditions of confinement in a prison, two elements are required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual … 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.