Case law

Boyd v. Anderson

265 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 9, 2003

The “mailbox” rule established in Houston v. … Defendant Larry Shadley, the Officer In Charge of the shift on which the key was discovered, affirmed in exhibit # 20 "that in [his] best professional opinion this was clearly a set-up."

Stephen G. Bentle v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 08 2013, 5:20 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … In that letter, Bentle falsely stated that he had enrolled in a substance and alcohol abuse program and qualified for Social Security benefits.

Manning v. Wallace (In Re First Financial Associates, Inc.)

371 B.R. 877 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2007

Clearly, Darrell intended that his fiancé receive the money instead of the creditors of the Debtor. … Wallace under Kemper Policy 646; the Court has determined that the death benefit is immune from challenge by the Trustee.

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.

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.

Justin Dent v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2013

65(D), this Oct 17 2013, 5:31 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any 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. Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 641, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Armes v. Noble County Sheriff Department

215 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 6, 2002

To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” … While it could be argued that the Plaintiff should return to the Noble County Superior Court, Small Claims Division to have the prior judgment set aside, that is unnecessary where, such as here, it is *1016 clearly established

Aguilera v. City of East Chicago Fire Civil Service Commission

768 N.E.2d 978 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2002

its Findings and Conclusions, the Commission sustained Aguilera's discharge under the Ordinance, finding that Aguilera had twice obtained a positive result on a substance abuse test, the second after having completed a qualifying … Clearly, a finding of guilty is not required for a dismissal to occur following a second positive test result, and the Commission correctly upheld Aguilera's dismissal based on his second positive drug test for cocaine in

Highshew v. Kushto

126 Ind. App. 584 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1956

We think the evidence in this case clearly justified the jury in concluding that the appellant's negligence placed the appellee in a position of sudden peril. … No litigant has the right to have any particular individual sit on the jury even if qualified as his right is one of rejection and not selection and if he is eventually tendered a fair and impartial jury to try his case that

Abernathy v. McCoy

91 Ind. App. 574 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1926

We think that the prevailing current of the law now is, particularly as to wills, that where the intention of the donor is clearly manifest from the language used, considering the established rules of construction, such intention … The Century Dictionary defines “evident” as: “Plainly seen, manifest, obvious, plain, clearly discernible, visible, clear.”

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Djankovich

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2020

Shelter’s evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the insurance policies at issue do not provide coverage for the claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit, Shelter is not obligated to defend Djuro Djankovich in the … In other words, if the pleadings demonstrate that “a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, then no defense is required.” Id.

CENSKE v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2022

APPLICABLE LAW "Motions in limine are well-established devices that streamline trials and settle evidentiary disputes in advance, so that trials are not interrupted mid-course for the consideration … The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purposes. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

Bradley v. Brown

852 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 17, 1994

Expert testimony is admissible where: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert, (2) the testimony reflects “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” and, (3) such testimony “will assist the trier of fact to … Nancy Fiedler, Clement Maccia, and Howard Kipen, Evaluation of Chemically Sensitive Patients, JOM vol. 34, no. 5 at 529 (May 1992) [Ex. 34], Thus, plaintiffs’ own evidence clearly establishes that the “science” of MCS’s etiology

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

386 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 1974

These are clearly decisions for which responsibility must lie with the ICC. … “Jurisdiction” in this sense means that the asserted claim is clearly insufficient.

VIVIANS v. LOWE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 2021

The Court issued a Scheduling Order on November 24, 2020, which established a discovery deadline of May 21, 2021, and a dispositive motion deadline of June 25, 2021. [Filing No. 17.] … Vivians' apprehension, [Filing No. 20 at 6]; (2) "Detective Lowe could not have used excessive force, because he did not use any force at all," [Filing No. 20 at 5]; and (3) Detective Lowe is entitled to qualified immunity

Fleming v. Galipeau

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 2021

He hasn’t established a due process violation. Mr. Fleming further contends he was found guilty without any evidence of his guilt. But there is some evidence. … This is equally true of his inability to qualify for a reduction in his sentence.

Lorek v. Lorek

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2021

Lorek’s motion to dismiss and an opportunity for a hearing to establish that the dismissal be with prejudice due to Mr. Lorek’s persistent bad-faith conduct. … The Supreme Court found that “[t]he words ‘unless the debtor may be a debtor under such chapter’ expressly conditioned [the debtor’s] right to convert on his ability to qualify as a “debtor” under Chapter 13.” Id.

Robin (Bankert) Hall v. Robert H. Bankert

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2014

Shortly after filing this motion, Bankert was notified that the Social Security Administration found he was qualified for Social Security Disability benefits. … Supreme Court has placed a “strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations” and has acknowledged “the principle that child support modifications will not be set aside unless they are clearly

Beech v. State

162 Ind. App. 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1974

The State failed to establish the federal or state regulations and statutes, and therefore failed to show how the defendant did not comply with them; k. … Beech was qualified to receive ADC benefits. 2. The court erred in admitting certain evidence without proper foundation, and such evidence was prejudicial. 3.