Case law

Ivan Cornel Augustin Hendrickson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2020

Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 11 2020, 8:47 am court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.

Engle v. City of Indianapolis

151 Ind. App. 344 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1972

the Legislature may set a number of landowners needed to remonstrate before the “primary determinants” can even be considered, and it may logically, by means of Acts 1953, Ch. 160, Sec. 7, determine what signatures are qualified … Remonstrators’ argument is against the established rules of construction of legislative intent.

Jenkins v. State

627 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1993

The technician manipulated the samples under the supervisor's direction and followed the established protocols. A similar challenge was made in that case. … The work product privilege is a qualified one and can be waived. Id. What constitutes a waiver of the privilege depends upon the circumstances. Id.

GIBSON v. CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA/MHM SERVICES, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2023

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

LEE v. IPPEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 12, 2022

Rimmer, 936 F.3d 695, 710 (7th Cir. 2019) ("In an action under § 1983, the plaintiff must establish individual liability . . . … May 30, 2017) ("Courts have consistently held that skin conditions without other symptoms do not qualify as serious medical needs.") (collecting cases).

Gallant Insurance Co. v. Isaac

732 N.E.2d 1262 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2000

Furthermore, an article found in the corporation’s By-laws that qualified the president’s authority and limited him to what the Board approves of also did not defeat that inherent authority. See id. … Instead, however, Thompson-Harris was left unsupervised to establish common practice in violation of Gallant’s granted authority.

Logan v. South Bend City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021

The Court Need Not Reach the Issue of Qualified Immunity. … Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 616 (2007) (once the court determines there to be no constitutional violation, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity”); Chavez v.

Ward v. Arnold

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 2025

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 … Certainly, the safety of correctional staff qualifies as a legitimate governmental interest. Bell v.

Burk v. Heritage Food Service Equipment, Inc.

737 N.E.2d 803 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2000

Bowman challenges the trial court’s enforcement of paragraph 2(a)(v) by asserting, in part that: “Tri-State has no patents or secret formulas that qualify as a trade secret.” Appellant’s brief at 27. … But despite this change in the constitutional provision as well as our supreme court’s subsequent, less-restrictive interpretation of Article IV, § 19, we are still obliged to follow the precedent established by our supreme

N In Comm Trans Dist v. Chicago S Shore/S Bend RR

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1998

As Justice Cardozo succinctly summarized in Herndon : “The settled doctrine is that when a constitutional privilege or immunity has been denied for the first time by a ruling made upon appeal, a litigant thus surprised may … Indeed, this case illustrates what can happen when the established rules on full faith and credit are not respected.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Cave Stone, Inc.

78 Ind. Dec. 20 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1980

said: *695 “Exemptions from taxation are not, and ought not to be, especially favored by the courts; and where such an exemption is claimed, the party claiming the same must show a case, by sufficient evidence, which is clearly … And the Department lacks statutory authority to establish rules that add or detract from the Act.” See also Gross Income Tax Division v. Colpaert Realty Corp., (1952) 231 Ind. 463 , 109 N.E.2d 415 ; Mobley v.

Brown v. State

830 N.E.2d 956 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2005

Specifically, Brown maintains that his motion should have been granted because he established that the judge was prejudiced and biased against him. … Brown asserts that such evidence was relevant and that the offer of proof that he made established that the police officers used unlawful force during the episode.

WINDOM v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

established by IDOC, the Indiana Department of Health, and the CDC, regarding social distancing, maintaining cleanliness, and hand-washing. Id. at 1-2. … Windom's rights, it need not address their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. had original jurisdiction is entirely discretionary.").

Associated Ins. Cos. v. DEPT. OF ST. REV

655 N.E.2d 1271 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 29, 1995

The language which the Department cites does not clearly indicate that the legislature intended to depart from its "single taxpayer" policy. … Const. § 47.33 (5th Ed.1992) ("[Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.")

Indianapolis & Greenfield Rapid Transit Co. v. Andis

33 Ind. App. 625 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1904

Co., 7 Ind. 436 , as establishing the doctrine that a laborer employed by a railroad company in work not connected with the operation of the road is not a co-employe with the servants of the company operating the road. … In that statute the word “railroad” is clearly distinguished from “electric road,” and the legislature must have taken it for granted, by not adding any qualifying word, that the word “railroad” would be understood to mean

Paint Shuttle, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

733 N.E.2d 513 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2000

Paint Shuttle’s malpractice lawsuit against the law firm clearly constitutes a "claim” under the terms of the policy. 8 . … The law firm clearly failed to fulfill the condition precedent to obtaining coverage under the malpractice policy.

NEW ALBANY DVD, LLC v. City of New Albany, Indiana

362 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 2005

Linz, testified that no study has ever been conducted establishing and linking retail-only establishments to adverse secondary effects, perhaps for the reason that this type of store, i.e., strictly retail sales, is a relatively … The City has established through this evidence the first prong of the Renton test for the following reasons.

Lennon v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

123 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2000

“Anyone with relevant expertise enabling him to offer responsible opinion testimony helpful to judge or jury may qualify as an expert witness.” Tuf Racing Products v. … Recent studies likewise support the notion that there has not been established a causal link between MS and trauma. In 1991, Dr.

Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Vester

47 Ind. App. 141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 1911

To this extent we think the position of appellant’s counsel should be qualified. To apply the principle which we think applicable in such cases, we will take this ease. … "Where answers to interrogatories, fairly put, make such a purpose clearly apparent, there are authorities of great weight which hold it to be the duty of the court to set the verdict aside and award a new trial.

Williams v. Chater

915 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 31, 1996

Williams could perform her past relevant work was clearly insupportable. Id. … Clearly, it is axiomatic that an unbiased and impartial adjudicator is essential to the idea of a fair hearing.