Case law

In Re Kuhn

322 B.R. 377 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2005

The Carlson trustee failed to establish that the medical bills in question were joint obligations of the debtor and the non-debt- or spouse. … The record in this case fails to establish “bad faith” under these criteria.

Mar'Quita D. Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2017

[18] Captain Rotering, who was qualified as an expert in the field of fire investigation, testified as to his opinion: [T]he gasoline was taken out of the can that I found that was … [25] When a defendant alleges that the trial court failed to identify a mitigating circumstance, she is required to establish that the mitigator is both significant and clearly supported by the record

Graham v. Bendix Corp.

585 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 1984

It summarizes Bendix policy on transfers as one of moving people into jobs for which they are best qualified (T. 143-144). … The Supreme Court stated clearly in Furnco Constr. Corp. v.

Malone v. State

441 N.E.2d 1339 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1982

The mere repitition of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for an exception to the general rule. Williams v. State, 417 N.E.2d at 332 ; Willis v. State, 268 Ind. at 272 , 374 N.E.2d at 522 . … This is especially probable when the circumstantial evidence can clearly support either party’s account.

Forrest Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2020

“First, if an employee establishes that ‘adequate independent consideration’ supports the employment contract, the Court generally will conclude that the parties intended to establish a relationship in which the employer … Yet the Court excuses the lack of a subpoena by observing that Perkins believed he had to appear and testify—an error the Court describes as one of fact, in contrast to an error of law, which we have held does not qualify

In the Matter of the Adoption of M.S.T. R.P.M.T. v. C.K. and J.P.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2012

“A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. … Findings of Fact Father argues that the trial court’s finding number 25 was clearly erroneous.

Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

722 N.E.2d 926 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 31, 2000

The land order clearly intended to describe this street as it runs between Allisonville Road and Keystone Avenue. … The evidence indicates that the land valuation commission clearly placed the parcels within the 82nd Street Corridor area. (Trial Tr. at 69.)

Product Action International, Inc. v. Mero

277 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2003

QIS qualifies as a “Competitive Business” under the non-competition agreement because QIS is a “company, entity, or business that is engaged in providing quality control assistance or services to manufacturers.” … Yet that is precisely what the Smart Corp. majority did, while acknowledging in footnote 1 how difficult it was to reconcile its approach with the well-established boundaries of the blue pencil doctrine.

REITER v. NOEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 2023

McQueen, 818 F.3d 309, 318 (7th Cir. 2016) (stating that a prosecutor's actions with respect to investigative tasks are entitled only to qualified immunity). … That same day, Captain Burton was provided documentation establishing Plaintiffs' rightful ownership of the disputed property, "order[ing]" all concerned to follow Mr.

Metsker v. Whitsell

181 Ind. 126 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1914

Washington to take part in the hearing of the cause, for the reason that he had, before qualifying as county commissioner, executed, as surety, the appeal bond of Wm. V. Rooker. … On the other hand, if the proposed work were established, the costs of the appeal were properly taxable as a part of the costs of the proceeding.

Louis Amalfitano v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2012

He instead moved to strike the letter and Cole’s testimony after Cole refused to testify upon direct and cross-examination after the State extended her use immunity. … The letter clearly lacks formality, and, more crucially, its primary purpose was not to provide investigatory material to police.

Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Jarrells

906 N.E.2d 912 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2009

In return... the employer is given immunity from civil litigation with his employee. … I clearly part ways with the majority's treatment of our Pendleton decision.

Steven E Malloch v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2023

“When evaluating a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply the well- established, two-part Strickland test. … He argues that a “minimally competent defense attorney would have secured the testimony of a qualified expert.” (Appellant’s Br. at 58.) In Liao v.

Young v. Fortis Plastics, LLC

294 F.R.D. 128 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2013

Therefore, typicality is established with respect to the Proposed Class. 4. … Also, counsel for the named plaintiffs must be experienced and qualified and generally be able to conduct the litigation. See Eggleston v. Chi.

Terry Delane McNary v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2017

We review de novo a ruling on the constitutionality of a search or seizure but give deference to a trial court’s factual determinations and will not overturn them unless they are clearly erroneous. … Unless an established exception applies, law enforcement must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before executing a search and seizure. Stark, 960 N.E.2d at 889.

PASSMORE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 2023

But individuals cannot sue state agencies like the IDOC under Monell due to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Will v. … "A plaintiff seeking damages for negligence must establish (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of the duty, and (3) an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty." Pfenning v.

In re the Adoption of M.D.: S.D. (Father) v. S.F. (Mother), and D.M. (Adoptive Parent)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 2014

In August 2007, Mother (via the State) filed a petition to establish court-ordered child support. … We have recently construed the term as follows: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “unfit” as “[u]nsuitable; not adapted or qualified for a particular use or service” or “[m]orally unqualified; incompetent

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.B. (Minor Child)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

Following Parents’ qualified admission, the trial court adjudicated the Child to be a CHINS. … Accordingly, in reviewing whether the trial court’s findings or judgment are clearly erroneous, we must determine “whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and the findings clearly and convincingly

Ottman v. Barnhart

306 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2004

The Seventh Circuit has established that a claimant has the burden of establishing that she is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act on or before the date her insured status expired. Estok v. … The regulations, and this Circuit, clearly recognize that reviewing physicians and psychologist are experts in their field and the ALJ is entitled to rely on their expertise.

Lisa Haynes Whorley v. John F. Whorley, Jr. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2017

By misquoting the guideline to create two separate categories of “family member” and “household member,” and then using that misquoted language to declare Ortega to be a qualified person for this purpose, … The trial court clearly did not give credit to Mother’s testimony on this matter.