Case law

Richards

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2026

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 … Richards clearly suffers from very serious medical conditions, but the Constitution does not mandate that he be restored to good health – something that seems unlikely given Richards’ condition.

Miller v. Ryan

706 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

Since the surgeon was out of the room when the anesthetist performed the injection, and as the anesthetist was experienced and qualified, we decided in Huber that the surgeon would not be held responsible for the negligent … Miller’s recommendation of surgery, did not clearly document that Ryan was experiencing pain in her right foot. There was also testimony by Dr. Sanders that Dr.

PARTIN v. BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a BAPTIST HEALTH FLOYD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 17, 2022

"[I]t must clearly appear that it was the purpose or a purpose of the contract to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the third party. … Accordingly, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that Dr. Marksbury is entitled to the protections of a qualified privilege.

Giza v. Arnold

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 2022

Giza has not clearly alleged a physical injury as a result of the two fires, and ultimately he will not be able to recover for mental distress caused by the fires if he did not suffer any physical injury. … No more is necessary to establish deliberate indifference[.]”); Billman v.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2022

The ALJ did not establish a logical bridge between the evidence and her credibility finding. This in turn means she did not establish a logical bridge in her RFC analysis which downplayed or omitted Mr. … The ALJ’s analysis does not clearly provide such acknowledgements. The ALJ noted Mr.

Bryant Dowdy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing … Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(C), noting that “the term ‘shortly’ is relative rather than precise,” the purpose of the rule is to assure reliability, and holding that the statements qualified as statements

Jack Marshall v. Beth Marshall

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2012

I think that the court can take judicial notice of the calendar time. 10 So they would not qualify under that.” Id. at 328. … There is sufficient evidence to establish the aptitude and ability of the parties’ son, as well as his ability to contribute to the laptop expense.

Smith v. State

655 N.E.2d 532 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

The record also clearly reveals that Furnish was killed as a result of the conspiracy. … The above evidence was admissible and relevant under Indiana common law at the time of trial to establish Smith's preconceived plan to kill Furnish. E.g., Hardin v.

Timberlake v. State

690 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1997

Appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well-established. … Defendant’s final argument concerning the sentencing order is that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional because its qualifying language precludes consideration of relevant mitigating evidence.

Lakin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

545 N.E.2d 843 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1989

A plaintiff need not establish the defect was the sole cause of the injury, proximate cause is sufficient. Green v. *847 River Terminal Ry Co. (1985 6th Cir.), 763 F.2d at 805, 810. … Clearly, it was a question for the jury as to whether the BIA was violated and whether the violation was the proximate cause of Lakin's injury.

Mays v. Parker

147 Ind. App. 81 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1970

Smith, is and was at all times mentioned herein the duly elected, qualified and serving Judge of the Circuit Court of Madison County. 3. … The other corporation had failed to win voter approval and clearly never came into existence.

Diaz v. Diaz (In Re Diaz)

120 B.R. 967 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 26, 1989

Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794 (1972), abolished the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort actions. … The district court judgment here clearly is a debt for money under the Bankruptcy Code.

United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lowe

583 N.E.2d 164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1991

The notice from Farm Bureau to its policyholders clearly stated that current policies, which included uninsured motorist coverage, would be revised and amended, effective January 1, 1988, to provide both uninsured and underinsured … Certainly, if the legislative intent was to exclude all renewed policies, there would be no need for such qualifying language in the statute.

Head v. State

443 N.E.2d 44 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1982

Engaging in certain penally-prohibited behavior may, of course, evidence a recklessness sufficient to establish manslaughter, or a practical certainty or intent, with respect to causing death, sufficient to establish murder … If the victim had died, Defendant clearly could have been charged and convicted of felony murder.

Richard Brown and Janet Brown v. City of Valparaiso, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

Additionally, Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) provides that on appeal from claims tried to the bench, this court “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous . . . .” … The Browns’ have failed to establish that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous.

Yingst, Spec. Admin. v. Pratt

139 Ind. App. 695 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

Such privilege, excuse or justification can be found in the authorities under self-defense and under the heading of necessity but the underlying principle most frequently fathering the immunity is that where the defendant … The Helms case is clearly distinguishable from the one presently before us.

JOLLEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 2021

Jolley alleges that USERRA requires federally employed veterans to pursue relief before the MSPB, "which has administrative judges not constitutionally qualified" under the criteria established in Lucia v. … He asks the Court to "decide that the administrative judges" must be qualified under the criteria established in Lucia and order that "decisions previously made by constitutionally unqualified administrative judges" after

Strauss v. United States Postal Service

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2021

He further alleges that, by doing so, “Defendant YouTube LLC’s conduct deprived [the Plaintiff] of his rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in violation … The Court need not assess these arguments, as Count V is clearly deficient on its face.

Hine v. Extremity Imaging Partners, Inc.

773 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2011

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … While such a comment by Beluk was clearly sexist, unprofessional and likely unwelcome, Hine clearly did not interpret it as being severe or humiliating or suggestive of illicit conduct to obtain business. 4 .

Hoglund v. State

945 N.E.2d 166 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2011

Clearly inappropriate in the situation, that's for the fact finder to decide, not for this lady to make an opinion. [Prosecutor]: I would agree Your Honor— [Hoglund's Counsel]: It's a legal conclusion. … Again, I would object to any response on her part, she is not qualified to determine whether or not this girl is telling the truth. Court: Would you ask the question again [State] and then I'll rule.