Case law

Employers' Fire Insurance v. Consolidated Garage & Sales Co.

85 Ind. App. 674 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 1927

Nevertheless, when the proof establishes that a stored car, while in charge of the garage keeper, has been taken out and used by an employee of the latter, without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and has been damaged … The complaint clearly and sufficiently alleges, and the evidence without any doubt shows, an unlawful taking of the automobile as defined by this section of the statute.

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Powell

757 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 1991

The pending action in connection with which the admission was made has, as noted above, been dismissed, and Trial Rule 36 indicates quite clearly that the admission should have no preclusive effect against Auto-Owners in … To say in such a situation that his relationship qualified him as being “in” or “upon” the van would be to drain those terms of meaning, and it would also apparently swallow up those situations in which a person could be

Shawn E. Voorhies v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2013

Voorhies has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the severity of Partin’s injuries as an aggravator. … However, the impact on others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases but, in order to qualify as such, the defendant’s actions must have had an impact on other persons of a destructive nature that is not normally

Gillam v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2022

The court must review 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 from such … Gillam neither specifically asks for injunctive relief, nor clearly allege that he believes himself to be in danger at present.3 He hasn’t alleged a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against any defendant.

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

Caldwell v. Barnhart

460 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 11, 2006

. *924 III.Standard for Disability In order to qualify for disability benefits under the Act, plaintiff must establish that he suffers from a “disability” as defined by the Act. … O’Koon found no evidence to establish the presence of the “C” criteria.

Zimmerman v. St Joseph County of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2021

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 … “Legal mail” is a term of art, however, and refers to mail to or from the inmate’s legal counsel that is clearly identified as such; this type of mail may not be opened outside the presence of the inmate. Kaufman v.

Augustine v. State

461 N.E.2d 101 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1984

II Appellant next argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for murder inasmuch as the evidence clearly shows that the shooting was done in self defense. … It is generally considered that when a person’s state of mind is concerned, the jury is as well qualified to form an opinion based upon the facts presented to it as is any witness, even an expert witness.

RICHARDS v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2024

Richards alleges a common policy or plan of willfully promoting younger, less qualified employees over older, more qualified employees. … I believe I was qualified for the role and was passed over for a less qualified, younger applicant.

John S. Paniaguas, Kathy R. Paniaguas, Woodrow Cornett, III, and Kristine E. Cornett v. Endor, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … Findings are clearly erroneous if the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them, whereas a judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been

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.

Lee Yoder v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 2013

These statements were not clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. … This evidence is sufficient to establish that the building was a “dwelling” for purposes of the arson statute. See Byers v.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T., Minor Child, T.T., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2013

S.T. also has significant dental needs and will require braces, and may also have some type of “auto immune disorder.” … We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in Paragraph 10. 2.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.C., M.H., A.J., D.J., & J.J. (Minor Children), and M.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2013

TACDCS also learned that the three youngest children were behind in their immunizations, and there were no immunization records for the two older children. … In deference to the trial court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous.

In the Matter of the Estate of Margaret S. Jones, John A. Jones, Jr., Personal Representative v. Joyce E. Schaefer, Beneficiary, and Suzanne D. VanGombos (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2017

, is clearly erroneous. … [36] Clearly, the administration of Decedent’s estate was contentious.

Estate of Eiteljorg Ex Rel. Eiteljorg v. Eiteljorg

813 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2011

The JN Trust became a qualified terminable interest property trust upon Harrison’s death, with Sonja as its lifetime income beneficiary and Nick and Jack as remaindermen. Id. ¶8. … Here, the survivor was Sonja, whose July 1, 2003 death clearly transpired after the Key Date.

Trueblood v. Anderson

156 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2001

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States … Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Williams, 120 S.Ct. at 1512 .

Westwood Veterinary Clinic LLC v. Amber Blackburn

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2025

Westwood argues that Blackburn’s verified counterclaim did not qualify as an affidavit and, thus, was not properly designated under Trial Rule 56. … “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision either clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or misinterprets the law.” Id.

Bledson v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2022

So Bledson misreads Ruth when he argues that the decision establishes that his Illinois conviction does not qualify as a career offender predicate under 6 … Bledson’s motion clearly relies on Ruth in support of his argument that his Illinois Unlawful Possession conviction does not qualify as a career offender predicate under the Guidelines. [DE 46-1 at 1, 2.]

Howard Jackson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2015

At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of a large amount of heroin—eight to eleven times the statutory weight necessary to qualify as a Class A felony—and a considerable stash of cash. … His criminal history clearly indicates that while his last conviction dates from 1998, he has had several run-ins with the authorities since his release from incarceration.