Case law

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.

Presley Jermaine Brown v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. … was convicted of level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and on appeal he argued that there was insufficient evidence that he had been previously convicted of a qualifying

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).

Chosen Consulting LLC v. Town Council of Highland, Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 2024

Section 12112(b)(4) makes it unlawful to deny employment opportunities to a “qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association … Clearly, something was amiss.

Krudy v. Simpson (In re Simpson)

474 B.R. 656 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 2, 2012

Simpson’s participation seems clearly to have been an accommodation to Simpson Farms’ voracious appetite for money. … Her pension benefits could not have serviced half the loan, and the Simpsons were clearly unaware of the specter of contribution doctrine until the Trustee filed this suit.

Walden v. State

895 N.E.2d 1182 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2008

offender phase of a trial that the Legislature has ordered a jury trial to determine habitual offender status.2 For many years, Justice Dickson urged this Court to acknowledge that if the Legislature had intended for three qualifying … State, 203 Ind. 581, 181 N.E. 507, 512 (1932), or the right to make, repeal, disregard, or ignore clearly existing law. See Fleenor v. State, 514 N.E.2d 80, 87 (Ind. 1987); Hubbard v.

Janet L. McDaniel v. Mark L. McDaniel (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2016

Father pointed out that Choi was the children’s therapist and had clearly stated that she would not counsel either parent. … Mother claims that this finding is not supported by the evidence because she believes that the parties’ mediation session was not long enough to qualify as extensive.

Harold Bishop v. State of Indiana

40 N.E.3d 935 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2015

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … He argues that to qualify under the rule “the crimes must be so strikingly similar that it can be said with ‘reasonable certainty’ that the same person committed them” and that the circumstances of

WINDOM v. STAMPER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 2022

. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such … To state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege that he is a qualified person with a disability and that prison officials denied him access to a program or activity because of his disability.

Citizens Action Coal. v. No. Ind. Pub. Serv.

472 N.E.2d 938 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

If its contention were true, then a rate established in 1941 which was insufficient or caused a loss to the Company, would entitle the Company at this time to have a rate established by which it could recoup such a loss or … Although the investment, expenses and obligations resulting from the projects do not conform to the `used and useful' concept, PP & L contends that they could still qualify for consideration in establishing a rate base if

Dominguez v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

149 F.R.D. 158 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 1993

The deposition testimony clearly indicates the Cincinnati report was not a basis, ground or “input” for the testifying expert’s opinion and that the report was never even considered. … Defendant has not established it is unable to obtain this information from another source or examination.

HOTEP-EL v. CARTER

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

In order to invoke the protections of the due process clause, a litigant must first establish the existence of a liberty or property interest. … The Seventh Circuit has clearly indicated that a prisoner has no property or liberty interest in prison employment. Wallace v.

Johnson v. Sheriff department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 16, 2023

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint (ECF 1) 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 … Bend, 997 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir. 2021) (pointing to “a few sporadic examples of an improper behavior” is not enough to establish an official custom under Monell).

Schneck v. City of Jeffersonville

152 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1898

S., on page 202, the same court again said: “In cases like this, legislative ratification is the equivalent of original authority, and what is clearly implied in a statute is as effectual as what is expressed. * * * . … of the taxpayers of the city of Jeffersonville to be taken without just compensation, and is therefore violative of article 1, section 21, of the Constitution; (2) it denies to 'the taxpayers of the city privileges and immunities

United States v. SCA Services of Indiana, Inc.

849 F. Supp. 1264 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 18, 1994

C & P certainly, qualifies. 814 F.Supp. at 1277. In yet another case, Kelley v. … The weight of authority establishes that liability under CERCLA is joint and several.

Looney v. Miami Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2020

immunity. … “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by … citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence

5200 Keystone Ltd. Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc.

30 N.E.3d 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

KLR contends the trial court erred in sustaining the objection. [15] Indiana Evidence Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, and provides as follows: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge … contamination of the Site. [27] When reviewing a ruling on a T.R. 41(B) motion to dismiss, we apply the following standard of review: The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss made under Trial Rule 41(B) is reviewed under the clearly

GOLLIDAY v. WELLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 2025

As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Olson v. … He clearly can write and understand English at a high level. Furthermore, this case is at a very early stage, with the Court just now screening Mr. Golliday's original complaint.

Johnson v. Hershberger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 16, 2023

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint (ECF 1) 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 … Bend, 997 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir. 2021) (pointing to “a few sporadic examples of an improper behavior” is not enough to establish an official custom under Monell).

Douglas C. Holland v. Rising Sun/Ohio County First, Inc., Ohio County, Rising Sun, Quin Min, and Kirk and Michelle Neace

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2012

The plain language of the trial rule indicates that “first” qualifies “responsive pleading,” it does not mention or make any reference to a party. … We will only set aside a trial court’s findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. Id.