Case law

Averhart v. State

470 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1984

Appellants Averhart and Hutson claimed there was error in permitting voir dire of the petit jury to include "death qualifying" questions that would be impermissible pursuant to Witherspoon v. … He found that clearly the defendant appreciated the criminality of his conduct.

D.P. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2018

Mar 09 2018, 8:57 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be

Robert Decker v. Paul Whitesell, as Superintendent of the Indiana State Police, The Indiana State Police Board, and The Indiana State Police

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2012

We may vacate the agency’s decision only if the evidence, when viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the agency are clearly erroneous. Id. … The evidence presented at the hearing established that Decker scheduled only four sessions by June 17, 2009.

Day v. Nottingham

160 Ind. 408 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1903

The rule is well settled that no one is in a position to demand relief upon the ground of fraud upon the part of another, unless he establishes that he has suffered an injury specially to himself. … In such a case as this, under the circumstances, a court of justice will be cautious and hesitate in granting the relief sought by the applicant, where it does not clearly appear that he is acting from good motives, and not

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.S. D.S. v. Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2012

Specifically, the trial court found that the record clearly showed Father was properly served with the summons and termination petition in the underlying case. … you fail to appear at the hearing, the Juvenile Court may terminate your parent-child relationship; and if the court terminates your parent-child relationship[,] you will lose all parental rights, powers, privileges, immunities

Springer v. State

209 Ind. 322 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 1935

That as such superintendent of said hospital the said Elizabeth Springer was then and there and previously thereto empowered, authorized and designated by the duly elected, qualified and acting trustees of and for said county … It is clearly seen that Sherrick, as auditor, was not charged or intrusted by law with the collection of the money.

The City of Sullivan v. North American Latex Corp, Kenneth Wayne Plummer, and Others Owning Property

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2014

The first two clearly pertained only to increasing tax revenues. … The City argues that the Remonstrators failed to establish all of the factors set forth in subsection (e).

Ball v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2020

"When facts relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction are disputed, the plaintiff must establish those facts by a preponderance of the evidence." Miller v. Fryzel, 499 F. … Clearly, Plaintiff’s failure to assert a challenge to the ALJ’s appointment before the agency at any point in the administrative proceedings leads to forfeiture of her Appointments Clause claim. United States v. L.A.

ROSS v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2022

"[A] preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Orr v. … SORNA established three tiers of sex offenders with escalating reporting requirements.

Robert Coleman v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2020

[10] During the September 2019 sentencing hearing, Coleman’s counsel asked to make a “statement” in which he argued that the evidence was insufficient and that “saliva does not qualify as bodily waste … “[D]ue process requires that a penal statute clearly define its prohibitions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Stone-Bey v. Swihart

898 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 1995

Thus, if Stone-Bey fails to establish the absence of a genuine factual issue, the motion must be denied even if Swihart or Barnes present no evidence. Bailey v. … Voice stress analysis results are clearly admissible for corroboration in prison disciplinary hearings, See Lenea v.

Funk v. Funk

563 N.E.2d 127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1990

An unsworn statement or uncertified exhibit does not qualify for consideration on a summary judgment motion. Id. … Clearly, it was possible for the decedent to have acquired other real property before his death. Thus, the residuary clause was not tailored exclusively for the farm.

United States (EPA) v. Environmental Waste Control, Inc.

710 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 1989

Congress clearly intended to provide for the recovery of attorney fees in citizen suits brought pursuant to § 6972 and § 9659, and Congress clearly intended to reestablish intervention as of right in government initiated … FCL property lines, with the owners of all adjoining property clearly indicated. c.

State v. Trueblood

25 Ind. App. 437 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1900

Malott is referred to, named, and described as the “duly elected, qualified and acting auditor.” … The offense is defined in almost the exact language of the statute, and the acts constituting the offense are clearly stated.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D. v. Estate of Phyllis R. Barnes, By Peggy Hood, as Personal Representative, Joe Clinkenbeard, P.A., Stephen W. Robertson

2 N.E.3d 43 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2013

In interpreting a statute, our first step is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question; if so, no room exists for judicial construction. Siwinski v. … Code Ann. § 34-50-1-6 (West, Westlaw current with all 2013 legislation) (providing that if a recipient does not accept a “qualified settlement offer” and the final judgment is less favorable than the terms of the offer,

Pinch-N-Post, LLC v. Verna McIntosh

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2019

Courts of appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. … [7] To summarize, the sale proceeds first satisfy the property tax obligation for the property, then satisfy certain other qualifying tax obligations of the property owner, with any surplus going into the

NAPIER v. ORCHARD SCHOOL FOUNDATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 7, 2023

Arguably, it more clearly demonstrates an ongoing pattern and practice of hiring the best qualified people, without regard to their gender2. 2 In addition, at the time of Mr. … Napier maintains that when he applied for rehiring he was clearly qualified for the position, and that Mr. Eble's reason for rejecting his application, i.e.

Nicholaus Knecht v. State of Indiana

85 N.E.3d 829 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2017

This constitutional rule prohibits evidence even if it qualifies for a state law hearsay exception. Crawford overruled a portion of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

NEW HORIZONS REHABILITATION, INC. v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 19, 2019

To qualify for a design release, an applicant must have plans and specifications prepared by a registered architect or professional engineer. Ind. Code § 22-15-3-2(3). … In fact, Defendants do not clearly argue there is a heightened standing requirement for claims brought under those statutes.

Endres v. Horner

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2025

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