Case law

Plan Commission for Floyd County, Indiana v. Klein

765 N.E.2d 632 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2002

The ordinance must contain specific standards by which the plan commission can determine whether the plat qualifies for approval. Inp.Cope § 36-7-4-702(b). … Such testimony, however, while helpful, is totally irrelevant to *647 establishing whether a plat complies with a subdivision control ordinance. Cundiff v.

Desiree Heitz v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2025

As this Court recognized in Carr, Criminal Rule 4(C) establishes a one-year period for prosecution that runs continuously absent specific qualifying interruptions that extend the period— none of which … Initially, the record does not clearly show that defense counsel was referring to the present cause when citing discovery while asking for a continuance.

Sanders v. Astrue

894 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 6, 2012

Sanders was limited to jobs with “no interactions with co-workers or the general public” (AR 15) because the DOT jobs listed by the VE clearly contemplate some interaction with co-workers. … Sanders establish the principle that an ALJ can’t simply state the outcome of the credibility assessment, but must explain the various factors and evidence that support the ultimate conclusion.

Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta, Wabash Col.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances supporting the judgment for relief. Id. … An unsworn statement or unverified exhibit does not qualify as proper evidence. Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624, 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

Decker v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2022

At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel stipulated that the VE was qualified to testify as a vocational expert. (AR 72-73). … See Brace, 970 F.3d at 821-23 (remanding where VE testimony did not clearly establish the method used, and counsel objected based on Alaura).

Teachers Credit Union v. Kimberly Cripe

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2024

The Terms and Conditions stated, “This document, along with any other documents we give you pertaining to your account(s), is a contract that establishes rules which control your account(s) with us. … offer to amend the Agreement; the mailing consisted of only two pages, “the first of which clearly referenced the Addendum (in bold, all-capital letters), and the second of which was the Addendum

MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. v. PEI PIPELINE SERVICES, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2020

rudimentary that pleading requirements in the federal courts are governed by the federal rules and not by the practice of the courts in the state in which the federal court happens to 1 In fact, PEI’s own arguments establish … PEI states that, “[w]ithout question, MCI’s fiber-optic cable . . . qualifies as a ‘facility’ under DUFA,” and, “MCI clearly qualifies as an ‘operator’ under DUFA.” [Filing No. 19 at 5 (citing Filing No. 15).]

HOBBS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 11, 2026

[and] a single instance of a constitutional violation caused by the policy suffices to establish municipal liability." Id. (cleaned up). … This evidence is not sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that CoreCivic's informal rule of allowing medical personnel to determine if an inmate had a medical need for a bottom bunk was a clearly unconstitutional

DASILVA v. INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2020

5 Because the Court has granted Attorney General Hill’s Motion to Dismiss the federal claims brought against him in his individual capacity, it need not address his additional argument that he is entitled to qualified … immunity in connection with those claims.

United States v. Oakley

731 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 1990

Clearly, the government may base a decision to conduct a warrant-less search of a prisoner’s body on legitimate concerns about that prisoner’s health. … Wolfish, I conclude that the government has met its burden of establishing the reasonableness of the search. Each of the four Wolfish factors are discussed below.

Christopher Starkey v. Janet Panoch

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2012

In 2007, Husband and Wife moved to Marion County and established a marital residence there, where they lived with Z.S. and L.S. in 2007 and 2008. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 840.

Apuri v. Parkview Health System, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 23, 2020

The Plaintiff has not established the second element of his prima facie case. … The Plaintiff argues that, because he had some of the lowest mortality rates of physicians at Parkview, he must therefore have been qualified to hold medical privileges.

Hill v. Hale (In Re Hill)

133 B.R. 126 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 1989

The creditor objecting to discharge of a debt in bankruptcy bears a heavy burden of proof to establish that the debt is squarely within the statutory exceptions. … See, also, In re Yeates, 807 F.2d 874 (10th Cir.1986), where the Court held that a debtor’s obligation to a former spouse may be in the nature of support so as to be not dischargeable even though it would not qualify as alimony

Graber v. MAD BREWER, INC.

773 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2011

However, without more, a plaintiffs subjective belief that she is more qualified than another employee does not establish pretext. See Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th Cir.2001). … Mad Brewer responds that they are not co-owners as Eric Brewer is the sole owner of Mad Brewer, but it does not clearly explain the roles that Neels and Stucky played. (Def.’s Reply 10.)

Schwartz v. Gary Community School Corp.

762 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2002

The issue of whether payment for accrued but unused sick leave qualifies as wages for purpose of this statute is an issue of first impression in Indiana We have, however, examined this issue within the context of both bonus … These are clearly cireumstances beyond the employee's control. We find GCSC's decision to terminate Schwartz from the position he held both before and after his sabbatical likewise one beyond the employees control.

Gateway West Townhouse Association, Barry J. Stern and Judy C. Stern v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. SF Industrial Properties-Indianapolis, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2013

Pursuant to Ind.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 … Finally, the judicial review statutes provide that “only a person who qualifies under” the provisions concerning standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, timely filing of a petition for review, and timely filing

Vinson v. State

735 N.E.2d 828 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2000

Thus, as police officers assisting in the prosecution of this case, Officer Butts and Officer Hoover both clearly qualify for the second exemption from exclusion as provided in Evid.R.615. U.S. v. … Thus, because under Evid.R.615 the State had the right to have both Officer Butts and Officer Hoover remain in the courtroom, and because no evidence was presented to establish any prejudice, we conclude that the trial court

Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. FIELDS

254 Ind. 219 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1970

The fact of damage was thus established. … Clearly there is no reversible error here.

Sauerheber v. State

698 N.E.2d 796 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1998

In order to qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind.1995). … This is clearly outweighed by the relative brevity of the delay, Sauerheber’s decision not to assert his speedy trial right', and the absence of any prejudice as a result of the delay.

Brandon McManomy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2014

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Jan 27 2014, 7:01 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.