Case law

In the Matter of the Paternity of I.B., R.P. v. M.B., As Next of Friend of I.B.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2012

proceedings to establish paternity. … The trial court abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Machalk v. Cedar Lake, Indiana Town of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2024

Code § 36-8-4-12 (establishing the same “probationary appointments” for cities). … The court held, “Because the harassment itself was not a purported violation of Title VII, [the plaintiff’s] complaints do not qualify as alleging a protected activity.”

Knierim v. United States Government Department of the Navy

802 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2011

Rushing has published number of academic articles in his field and has been qualified previously as an expert witness numerous times in federal court as well as the Illinois Supreme Court. … The FTCA allows for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and the imposition of liability “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the

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.

Mahler v. United States Forest Service

927 F. Supp. 1559 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 7, 1996

At most, this recommendation provides some qualified support for Mahler’s view that the pine stands should be allowed to deteriorate on their own. … The words “take” and “kill” were used in a context that clearly focused on hunting, trapping, and poaching.

HARRIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2026

In 2016, Harris publicly dissented from the Democratic party establishment by refusing to support Hillary Clinton and throwing his support behind Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. Id. at 6. … Harris generally alleges that all the defendants were in some way involved in a conspiracy to surveil and harass him but does not clearly articulate the specific actions of the defendant's that will cause them liability

Christopher M. Galvan v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2014

In large part, the State’s theory was that Kathleen’s emotional reaction was a traumatic event that would qualify F.’s subsequent statements to Kathleen under the excited-utterance exception. … The State resumed questioning Kathleen to establish whether this testimony would be permitted.

Buddy & Pal's III, Inc. v. Stephen Shearer

91 N.E.3d 1000 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

Shearer also maintains that, regardless of his normal cognitive functions, he is not a qualified medical expert and is in no way qualified to determine his own injuries; that while he claimed he was … The evidence demonstrates that the accident occurred five to ten minutes after leaving the bar and establishes the extent to which Coyle appeared visibly intoxicated at that point.

Humphrey

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2026

Supp. 3d at 626 (explaining a motion to strike should not be granted unless the language has no possible relation to the controversy and is clearly prejudicial). … Similarly in paragraphs 40 to 42, Plaintiffs’ complaint details responsibilities of corporations like BLM to “hire qualified drivers,” “properly train their drivers,” and “properly supervise their drivers.”

Crowley v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 2023

. § 1915A, the court 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 … He also does not clearly explain who any of the “Jon Doe” or Jane Doe” defendants are.

Priddy v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2020

qualify. … sense clearly intended by the plain meaning of the Policy language. The exclusion, by using the word “usual,” excludes ordinary travel home and back to the work location by an insured.

James Beasley v. State of Indiana

30 N.E.3d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2015

We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. … App. 2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878)), trans.

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.

CAULDWELL, INC. v. Patterson

133 Ind. App. 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1962

The evidence tends to establish that the defendant violated the statute at said intersection and the complaint must be considered amended to conform to such proof. … We think that the inclusion of the qualifying clause in Instruction No. 10 herein “until he had reasonable cause for notice to the contrary,” distinguishes the case at bar from the aforesaid Spickelmeir case. Kraning v.

TAYLOR v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2023

immunity. … The Commissioner is sued in her official, rather than individual, capacity and qualified immunity does not apply to official- capacity claims. Wagoner v.

William Shecoby Palmer v. Petalas

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

Because it is a jurisdictional requirement, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing.” Apex Digital, 572 F.3d at 443. … The Plaintiff fails to establish standing by competent proof.

Crawley v. Schneider

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 2, 2025

. § 1915A, the court 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 … Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.”) (emphasis added)); see also Walker v.

Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund (PERF) v. Robert O. Effner

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 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 … In its entirety, the 2006 Annual Statement clearly and unambiguously informs the recipient that only employment in a PERF-covered position resulting in additional years of creditable service will increase the member’s monthly

Dunmore v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2025

Dunmore does not dispute that the Matching Algorithm qualifies as a trade secret. [DE 55 at 8]. … In his ruling, Judge Martin pointed out that Dunmore has all the evidence she needs to “establish what happened, how it happened, and what losses she incurred.” [DE 52 at 4].

RODRIGUEZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2026

Rodriguez's Fourteenth Amendment claims.1 1 Because the Court grants the Defendants' motion on substantive grounds, the Court need not analyze whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … "'To recover damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.'" Whitfield v.