Case law

Oluwasanmi Animashaun v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2012

Our standard of review for the admissibility of evidence is well established. … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.

Milner v. Dolgencorp, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2023

Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 493-94 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that defense counsel’s “subjective knowledge” obtained in a telephone call with plaintiff’s counsel did not qualify as an “other paper,” even when the defense attorney … Defendant must either allege receipt of an “other [written] paper” clearly revealing the amount in controversy, or else present a persuasive argument with supporting case citations that a writing is not required.

Benjamin T. Haines v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2015

To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. … Where either is clearly unreasonable, the search will not be upheld.

Smith v. Kittle Property Group, INC.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2025

The employee handbook states clearly that the company “does not allow behavior at any time that threatens, intimidates, bullies, or coerces another employee, a resident, or a member of the public” [48-12 at KPG000213]. … Title VII prohibits a qualifying employer from “discharg[ing] any individual . . . because of such individual’s race [or] . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Orr v. Sevier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021

Lastly, the State Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Orr “fails to state how State Defendants were directly or otherwise involved” in forcing him to be handcuffed behind his back. … The State Defendants’ qualified immunity argument fails because it is premised upon their assertion they were not involved in handcuffing Orr behind his back, which is a disputed fact. See Mordi v.

Jordan D. Christie v. Tamara L. Waller (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2016

We will uphold the trial court’s custody determination unless “it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” … [45] Our supreme court has “recognize[d] that judges are not immune from the emotional effects of the cases they hear. . . .

Benjamin T. Haines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2015

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. … See Washington, 758 N.E.2d at 1018 (noting that the transcript of the revocation hearing had been placed in the record and clearly disclosed the court’s basis for revoking the defendant’s probation

Brown v. Clow

158 Ind. 403 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1902

The answer was clearly insufficient, and the demurrer to it was properly sustained. … association as directors to manage the affairs of said company for the first year, and serve with the present directors until the annual meeting of the stockholders, to be held on, etc., and until their successors are elected and qualified

Kolby O'Banion, Taylor O'Banion, Tim O'Banion, and Kelly O'Banion v. Ford Motor Company

43 N.E.3d 635 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2015

Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion … Once reliability has been established, alleged discrepancies between the evidence and an expert’s opinion go to the weight and credibility of the testimony, not to its admissibility. Id.

Steeno v. Wabash National Trailer Centers

822 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2011

Darchak, 580 F.3d at 631 (noting examples of circumstantial evidence, including: suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, statistical evidence of disparate treatment, and passing over otherwise qualified candidates … The Court recognizes this precedent, and that there are clearly cases where the job duties absorbed by employees outside the protected class are too meager to support a prima facie case under the mini-RIF analysis.

Akins v. State

429 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1981

Clearly it was error and this Court should say so. The controlling statute, Ind. § 35-3.1-1-2 (Burns 1979 Repl.), is unambiguous. … In finding the error harmless on this basis, the majority characterizes subsection "(c)" as designed to establish "witness disclosure requirements."

Spann-El v. Miami Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2022

In plain terms, only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). … Here, Spann-El raises one valid claim of imminent danger, two conclusory claims of imminent danger, and several claims of imminent danger clearly without merit.

THORPE v. INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION TRUST FUND, I.B.E.W.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

The fund’s intention not to overpay plan participants doesn’t establish that its decision to recoup an alleged overpayment from Mr. … Even if that is correct, the QDRO’s terms clearly establish responsibility for any overpaid benefit that needs to be offset; Mr. Thorpe is the one who must hold in trust and disburse benefits that belonged to Ms.

Fowler v. Duhme

143 Ind. 248 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

generally, or whenever it might happen, but in the contingent sense of death occurring within a particular time, in which case the devise over was to take effect by substitution, and not as a limitation engrafted on and qualifying … These are technical words aptly used and clearly creating an estate in fee simple.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., C.M., and K.M. M.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2012

The trial court’s judgment will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … For the most part, Mother cites her own testimony from the termination hearing in support of her contention, while occasionally citing testimony by others that is qualified by other testimony.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

364 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2005

After extensive testing, Lilly determined that the effect in dogs appeared to be an immune response and “idiosyncratic” in nature, meaning it occurred due to the unusual sensitivity in individual dogs. … [Defendant] has not shown the underlying findings of fact to be clearly erroneous”). 163.

RODGERS-ROUZIER v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2022

Rodgers-Rouzier qualifies a seaman for purposes of Section 1 of the FAA and cannot be compelled to arbitrate under this statute. Dkt. 97 at 11.2 On March 31, 2021, Ms. … Rodgers-Rouzier clearly contests the validity of the arbitration agreements.

Viking, Inc. v. NBD International, Inc., and Selective Insurance Company of America (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Instead, it clearly and unambiguously states that it applies to “all claims and demands” upon Selective that are “on account of” the “loss and damage” Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum … NBD asserts that Oakes was not qualified to 10 render opinions on this issue and that his testimony failed to establish causation of the corrosion.

Henry (Hank) Eilts, Hank's Construction, and The G. Jackie Eilts Credit Shelter Trust v. Jeremy Wayman

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 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 May 24 2013, 8:53 am the defense of res judicata, collateral … The trial court’s findings and conclusions as to apparent authority are not clearly erroneous.1 III.

Reed v. Reid

980 N.E.2d 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2012

In Defendants’ view “This evidence establishes that David Reed consented to the placement of the Forge material on his property in June 2004 that contained clearly visible waste fragments.” Id. … In that case, an insurance company sold annuities to a business customer for the business’s tax-qualified contributory retirement plan.