Case law

Bill Musgrave v. Squaw Creek Coal Co. and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2012

The ALJ’s decision was clearly based upon two separate but individually sufficient grounds. … The definition of non-coal wastes clearly refers to wastes that were generated during surface mining activities.

CLEPHANE v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2024

If a petitioner cannot establish one of the Strickland prongs, the court need not consider the other. Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). … The plea agreement clearly states that, because of his prior Indiana robbery conviction, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 851 and that he was a career offender under

Gilles v. State

531 N.E.2d 220 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1988

The State argues reference to the crowd as "fuckers," "whores," "queers," and "AIDS people," and saying the people were condemned to hell qualify as fighting words. We agree. … I must conclude that the evidence is plainly insufficient to establish the "personal insult" element of the crime as charged.

State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC

977 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences and deductions drawn therefrom … “Indiana Evidence Rule 702 requires that an expert be qualified as such by his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Armstrong, 775 N.E.2d at 366.

Hostetler v. Johnson Controls Inc

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

Gilbert is an immunotoxicologist who addressed TCE’s effect on the immune system. And Dr. Spaeth is a medical doctor who addressed the effects of TCE, PCE, and asbestos. … In Kirk, the plaintiff developed a rare auto-immune disease after living in an area heavily contaminated with TCE. Dr.

Sholes v. Sholes

760 N.E.2d 156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2001

In addition, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order directing General Motors Corporation, David's former employer, to pay 100% of David's retirement benefits to Christine. … Twice in Pollard, this Court clearly stated that attorneys may not be foreed to work without compensation.

Bulent Colak v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2014

The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” … Colak asserts that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to qualify this testimony for the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule. See Ind.

Leandrew Beasley v. State of Indiana

29 N.E.3d 802 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2015

The trial court’s determination will be reversed only where an abuse of discretion can be established. Id. … To prevail, the appellant must establish that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. Id.

White v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 2025

As White was told before, a violation of prison policy does not, by itself, establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Scott v. … He cannot ignore obvious mistreatment, but White provides no facts about his symptoms that would have alerted Warden Neal that his treatment was clearly inappropriate. See Snipes v.

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2012

Hunter again admitted responsibility and conceded that he had intended to sell the alcohol, which he agreed would qualify as another violation of the law. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

Kruse, Kruse & Miklosko, Inc. v. Beedy

170 Ind. App. 373 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1976

Dempsey died, leaving the Union Commerce Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, as the duly qualified and acting Special Administrator-Executor of his estate. Prior to September 1, 1970, plaintiff Raymond H. … We turn, therefore, to the question of whether the finding that such words were intended as a reference to appellants was clearly erroneous.

VANDERPOOL v. CAPITAL ACCOUNTS LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2024

If a petitioner cannot establish one of the Strickland prongs, the court need not consider the other. Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). … The plea agreement clearly states that, because of his prior Indiana robbery conviction, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 851 and that he was a career offender under

Simon Property Group L.P. v. mySimon, Inc.

194 F.R.D. 644 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2000

At least prior to the inadvertent disclosure of the documents to Elsten, the documents certainly qualified for protection under both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product privilege, including the core … Although the court’s discussion of inadvertent disclosures was dicta, it clearly was also considered and thoughtful dicta that is instructive here.

Finley v. Finley

422 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1981

The trial court here clearly considered factors in addition to the time involved. … Husband fails to note that this comment was made during an extensive voir dire process to qualify Bernth as an expert in the sale of insurance companies.

TAYLOR v. DIENHART

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2023

immunity grounds. … It is well-established that "the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness,'" Brigham City v.

Indiana State Health Commissioner v. Caitlin Bernard, M.D.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2025

The dispute in this case centers on whether TPRs qualify as patient medical records, such that they are exempt from disclosure under the APRA through Section 5-14-3- 4(a)(9). … And we conclude that the trial court’s balancing of the harms is not clearly erroneous.

Bush v. Washington National Insurance

534 N.E.2d 1139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1989

The burden of establishing an absence of any genuine issue rests with the moving party, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the opposing party. Wingenroth v. … Using the broadest terms possible, it clearly states that anyone with other health or medical insurance is excluded from coverage. This exclusion is incorporated in the policy itself.

Parise v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2021

However, Plaintiff actually stated in August 2018 that she was no longer working due to her immune deficiency, so her stress was greatly decreased. (AR 631.) … Clearly, however, Plaintiff did so here, in the form of voluminous testimony and abnormal medical findings.

Gina Vrankin v. Titan Vrankin

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2014

The trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … As an attorney who is familiar with the litigation, a trial judge is uniquely qualified to determine what amount of attorney fees is reasonable in a particular case. Cf.

Allen v. State

813 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2004

The FBI investigators also discussed the possibility of immunity for Sharriee. … Thus, Lumpkin determined that at no time "did [he] find the driver of the subject vehicle to be clearly visible, discernable or recognizable." Appellant's App. p. 2922.