Case law

Kras v. Dick's R U Crazy, Inc.

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

[narcotics] training” was “amply qualified to testify as an expert”). … Kras argues that the DPE is ambiguous because it does not clearly express the coverage limitation, and that the language does not clearly and unambiguously preclude coverage for any injury that happens off-premises.

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).

Corcoran v. State

739 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2000

This claim does not qualify for the “fundamental error” exception, and it was forfeited by procedural default. … This Court has clearly held this Indiana capital sentencing procedure does not violate Section 18. Saylor v. State, 686 N.E.2d 80, 88 (Ind.1997); Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1258 (Ind.1995) (citing Fleenor v.

Antonio Turner v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2025

Second, the legislature clearly spelled out when using reasonable force or deadly force is “justified.” See I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). … State, 177 N.E.3d 412, 418 (Ind. 2021) (reinterpreting a provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act to avoid granting “blanket immunity to the state in every circumstance involving inclement weather”).

Robert Parker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn … See Meadows, 2 N.E.3d at 793 (holding that drug court deferral program provides an opportunity for those qualified to avoid conviction and sentence, but only if they comply with the conditions of the

Felice v. Republic Airlines, Inc.

954 F. Supp. 2d 812 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 17, 2013

Felice was clearly in a position with the union requiring his personal participation in or review of pilot conduct reports and the resolution thereof. … First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case.

STEWART v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 2, 2023

He argues that counsel failed "to introduce evidence establishing that the canine sniff resulted in a negative result, and that the canine was not qualified to detect the type of controlled substances allegedly … He therefore has not established prejudice from any error in the jury instructions.

GERLACH v. ROKITA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2023

The Defendants then, in reply, further explained their reasoning why the individuals were immune from suit. (Filing No. 41 at 17.) … Where claims are in fact against the State, Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit has been held to apply. (Filing No. 33 at 12–15.)

Frederick Cashner, Sr. and Lucille Cashner v. Western-Southern Life Assurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2014

Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 25 2014, 9:52 am court except for the purpose of establishing … Griffin, 849 N.E.2d 507, the question “was clearly a close call.” Appellants’ Brief at 7.

Michael D. Fox v. Melissa J. Fox (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2017

Father unquestionably qualifies as a relocating individual. … Moreover, the Notice states that no modification of parenting time would be necessary, again clearly implying that Child would be spending the same amount of time with Father that she always had, and

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Blackburn (In Re Blackburn)

68 B.R. 870 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 1987

Plaintiff argued that-this subsection expressly refers to § 523(a)(2)(A), which it had clearly raised in the complaint. … Certain goods may not qualify as necessities and still not be luxuries. Luxury in itself implies extravagance, superfluousness, self-indulgence; going beyond or overflowing an implicit, indeterminate level of comfort.

Steven Glover, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shelina M. Glover v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2019

erred in failing to grant its motion for summary judgment on the basis it was not properly notified of Shelina’s status as a “resident relative” in the household of her parents and that, therefore, she did not qualify … [14] “Insurers are free to limit the coverage of their policies, but such limitations must be clearly expressed to be enforceable.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

Mohamed v. Heeg

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

. § 1915A, the court must screen 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 … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Shepard v. Meridian Ins. Group, Inc.

137 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 2001

Although Option 1 offers the prospect of immunity from any shareholder challenge to the proposed merger in court, defen *1105 dants in this case have not advocated this approach. … Also, the latter statement was part of the court’s explanation of the remedy, and the court clearly contemplated a direct claim, not a derivative claim.

Simmons v. Crossroads Bank

533 B.R. 895 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2015

A court “ ‘abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an incorrect legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have relied … ("To bar the Bank from bringing to the court's attention facts discovered [after the Rule 4004(a) deadline] would either give the debtor immunity for acts concealed or committed [after the Rule 4004(a) deadline], or require

In Re the Estate of Nancy Jean McMillen, Donna McMillen v. Thomas Kane

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 10, 2012

The decision to remove a trustee is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse the trial court only when the court clearly abuses its discretion. Massey v. St. … Indiana Code section 29-1-10-1(d)(3)(A) (2010) requires that an individual who is not a resident of Indiana, but who otherwise qualifies to act as a personal representative, may qualify to serve as a personal representative

Shepherd v. State

690 N.E.2d 318 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1997

However, the State clearly misinterprets the holding of Chambers . The automobile exception to the search warrant rule requires more than probable cause. … “The State need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.

BLOCK v. ETHICON, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 2, 2020

While Defendants clearly disagree with Dr. … Clearly, Dr. Margolis is prohibited from offering opinions not properly disclosed in his expert reports. See Fed. R. Civ.

Leobardo Mercado v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2018

An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Even though the State filed only two charges against Mercado, he clearly touched M.F. inappropriately many times over several years.

Tyrone Wilbourn v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2014

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Feb 19 2014, 8:22 am establishing the defense of res judicata … “[F]or reversible error the defendant must establish that the trial judge clearly abused that discretion” and “must also designate specifically how he was prejudiced by the reopening of the State’s case.” Maxwell v.