Case law

Humphries v. Ables

789 N.E.2d 1025 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2003

Based upon these considerations, the Buyers have failed to establish that there was fraud committed by Betty which caused the Buyers to enter into the contract for the purchase of the liquor store. … The contract clearly states on page *1029 three that the purchase price of the business was to be the base price of $59,000 "plus the wholesale value of the inventory.

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.

O'Neill v. Indiana Commission on Public Records

149 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 2001

follows: The term “employee” means an individual employed by an employer, except that *587 the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified … O’Neill clearly engaged in statutorily protected activity when filing a formal complaint with State Personnel regarding gender discrimination on July 2, and she suffered an adverse employment action in the form of termination

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.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. McCarty

120 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2000

The Indiana Commissioners have moved to dismiss on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity for states and their officials acting in their official capacity. … This clearly presents a situation of ... vital interest to the State of Michigan.” Id., at 334 , 117 S.Ct. 811 .

Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana

69 N.E.3d 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2017

The Christies cite nothing for the proposition that a (potentially) less punitive charging decision qualifies as a “less restrictive” alternative. … Specifically, Indiana Code Section 34-13-9-1 unambiguously states that RFRA “applies to all . . . statutes,” and Section 34- 13-9-2 just as clearly states that “[a] . . . statute . . . may not be construed

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.G., L.C., and M.C. (Minor Children), and A.C. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2015

Clearly [Mother] has not made the progress she needs to make to properly meet [G.C.’s] special needs. … Furthermore, we can find no other evidence in the record establishing that Mother verbally abused the children.

Rahim Brumfield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2020

To qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind. 1999). … Instead, the State offered the evidence to establish that he had a motive to commit T.C.’s murder, an acceptable use under Rule 404(b)(2).

Smith v. Sparks Milling Company

219 Ind. 576 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1942

Their payment by the Government to the vendor and by the vendor to the Government was clearly and manifestly contemplated by the parties. … Again such a holding would run counter to the well established rule as laid down in the excerpt above quoted from Johnson v.

Joanna Latrice Stokes v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2014

While at the appointment, K.H. was attended to by a medical assistant and the pediatrician, and he received the appropriate immunizations. … To qualify as fundamental, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant 10 as to make a fair trial impossible. Id.

Hueston v. Sheriff of Allen County

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

“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. … However, “a municipality is immune from punitive damages,” so Hueston is limited to recovering compensatory damages. Est. of LaPorta, 988 F.3d at 985.

Osborne v. State

439 N.E.2d 677 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1982

Osborne was the duly elected and qualified Trustee of Center Township, Marion County, Indiana, for the period of October 1, 1970 through June 30, 1974. 3. … The burden, therefore, is on the moving party to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Warrick Hospital, Inc. v. Wallace, (1982) Ind.App., 435 N.E.2d 263, 269 .

Burkes

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

Fisher, 364 F.3d 970, 973 (8th Cir. 2004) (“It is well established . . . that when officers are presented with serious danger in the course of carrying out an investigative detention, they may brandish weapons . . . in … App. 2024). 4 Because the court concludes Officer Sands and Officer Sweeney did not use excessive force against Burkes, it does not reach their alternative argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Eco Manufacturing LLC v. Honeywell International, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2003

To establish the defense of fraud, however, Eco must also establish by clear and convincing evidence that Honeywell knew it was making false statements to the PTO and that it did so willfully, with intent to deceive. … In the course of developing its product, Eco consulted qualified counsel.

Shambreka Hall v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2025

It is also undisputed that Hall had THC in her bloodstream at the time of the collision and that THC qualifies as a schedule I drug. See Ind. … Under basic principles of due process, a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.

HENDERSON v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2022

If a petitioner cannot establish one of the Strickland prongs, the court need not consider the other. Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). … Indeed, it does not appear that he could demonstrate that sufficiency of the evidence was a "clearly stronger" issue likely to result in reversal.

Foos v. Taghleef Industries, Inc.

132 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2015

LeCour’s December 10, 2013 email to Bryan Jackson clearly establishes her retaliatory or discriminatory animus.” [Filing No. 73 at 28-29.] … Handbook when she disclosed his confidential medical records, that this constituted an adverse employment action, and that “[t]he evidence clearly establishes that employees who exercised their statutory rights to FMLA/[short-term

Goodwin v. State

96 Ind. 550 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1883

and which keeps within the range of the relevant testimony, because the prisoner’s counsel may, on cross-examination, add to the hypothetical case supposed by the prosecutor, such facts as he deems the evidence to have established … We are not disposed to question the soundness of the rule that instructions must not be contradictory; but we do affirm that one instruction may be qualified and explained by another intimately connected with it, and that

State ex rel. Steers v. Acree

139 Ind. App. 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1966

Summarizing the first paragraph, it is alleged that the action or cause was brought by Attorney General Steers, the duly elected, qualified and Acting Attorney General of the State of Indiana, founded upon two (2) State Board … a county officer as applicable under such circumstances as might be relevant under the specific statutes cited, none the less, said Section 49-3006, as pleaded in said second paragraph of answers unconditionally bestows immunity

In re Vancleef

479 B.R. 809 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2012

Trustee Yoon — as have some courts — focuses on what she deems to be a very clearly phrased law, and the fact that there is no legislative gloss or rule parsing which connotes or implies that a Chapter 7 Trustee cannot file … But where the debt is disputed, the creditor cannot establish a prima facie case of breach of a credit card contract without establishing a contract with the debtor, a breach and damages.