Case law

Andsu, Inc. v. City of Kokomo (In re Sassi Corp.)

51 B.R. 534 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 1983

This is clearly not the law. In LHD, a debtor-in-possession and a creditors’ committee filed a complaint to modify or set aside a mortgagee’s lease. … Kokomo’s intent that Andsu act on Koko-mo’s representation and concealment of facts is established by its own conduct in allowing Andsu to be substituted for Sassi under the contract.

Fiducial Investment Advisors v. Patton

900 N.E.2d 53 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2009

The role of an appellate court in reviewing an arbitration award is limited to determining whether the defendant has established any of the grounds for challenge permitted by the Uniform Arbitration Act. Id. … The arbitration panel clearly rejected FIA's argument that the panel lacked authority to decide those issues.

Jean-Baptiste v. K-Z, Inc.

442 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2006

Jean-Baptiste seemed qualified for the position because he had prior lamination experience in a recreational vehicle manufacturing facility. (Helvey Dep. 39.) … That Helvey fired the first black person he hired is clearly insufficient to overcome this presumption and establish animus because Helvey “could have refused to hire [Jean-Baptiste] in the first place.” Id.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of H.R. (Minor Child) and J.N. (Mother) and M.R. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2014

They are exceptionally qualified to tend to his special needs, and the sister/foster mother is overseeing his in-home speech therapy. … In sum, recent remedial efforts notwithstanding, Father clearly has a substance abuse problem that has continued for many years.

Tony Mays v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2013

Consequently, Mays’s appellate counsel would have been required to establish that the admission of the recordings resulted in fundamental error. See, e.g., Hoglund v. … Further, Mays makes no argument regarding his own statements on the video. 2 The Lehman court held that the informant’s description of the controlled buy at the beginning and end of the tape qualified as testimonial and

Rush v. McDonald's Corp.

760 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 1991

The showing a plaintiff must make to establish a prima facie case was set forth in Yarbrough v. … Evidence developed during discovery establishes that Rush's ERISA claim is best brought as a Section 510 claim ...

Scott v. Anderson Newspapers, Inc.

477 N.E.2d 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1985

They are defined and established by the articles of incorporation and applicable laws. Berger v. Amana Society (1959), 250 Towa 1060, 95 N.W.2d 909 , 70 A.L.R.2d 830, 838 ; Crocker v. … It clearly authorizes charter provisions "creating, defining, limiting or restricting the powers ..., of the shareholders of any class ... of shareholders."

Johnson v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2024

court must review the merits of a prisoner 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 seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for his conditions and requests an MRI of his head, chest, and lungs, physical therapy, a medical evaluation by a qualified medical practitioner, and a comprehensive mental

Monique J. Hartley (Mansfield) and Mark J. Mansfield v. Amity Reading (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2016

[36] Our Supreme Court has “recognize[d] that judges are not immune from the emotional effect of the cases they hear” . . . and that “[r]ecognizing that burden, we will not race to judgment over isolated … “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s award is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Daimler Chrysler Corp., 814 N.E.2d at 286-87.

Ian McCullough v. State of Indiana

973 N.E.2d 62 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2012

McCullough’s counsel argued that the State’s investigation was poor, stating, “I believe our evidence regarding our investigation is clearly, clearly more thorough than the State’s investigation.” Id. at 786. … Specifically, he stated, “I believe our evidence regarding our investigation is clearly, clearly more thorough than the State’s investigation.” Id. at 786.

Freddie Holman v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2012

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 … On February 28, 2011, the State offered Lakeitha use-immunity for her 4 testimony about what occurred on the night Robinson was shot.

Hardy v. Hardy

942 N.E.2d 838 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2011

Like FEGLIA, SGLIA establishes a specified “order of precedence” for policy beneficiaries. Id. at 52 , 102 S.Ct. at 53 . … The Court held that “a state divorce decree, like other law governing the economic aspects of domestic relations, must give way to clearly conflicting federal enactments.” Id. at 55 , 102 S.Ct. at 55 .

Jason L. Dague v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2014

An abuse of discretion occurs only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Palmer v. … Dague has failed to establish that the trial court denied him due process when it refused his request for a continuance. II.

McHenry v. McHenry (In Re McHenry)

131 B.R. 669 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 1989

it is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5) since the state court clearly never decided that issue. … He He He He H< He The Order of July 7,1980 [of the Bankruptcy Court] was clearly incorrect in its application of an Indiana Statute.

Thomas Derrow v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2014

the defense of purpose of establishing theres judicata, defense of collateral estoppel, or the law res judicata, collateral estoppel, orof the … The fundamental error exception to the waiver rule is an extremely narrow one, “available only when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic elementary principles of due process, and the harm or potential

United States Steel Corp. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

951 N.E.2d 542 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2011

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Commission’s authority to make a threshold determination of an entity’s public utility status does not *552 give the Commission jurisdiction to regulate that entity if it does not qualify … The CAD was established by the Commission pursuant to Indiana Code section 8 — 1—2—34.5(b), which provides in relevant part: The commission may establish an appeals division to act on its own behalf regarding individual customer

Hawkins v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2021

However, Hawkins clearly names “Lieutenant Wilson” in the Complaint, so this argument by Defendants is a non-starter. [DE 1. … He may only proceed on this claim if it falls under an exception: Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity, the state waived its own immunity, or the remedy is prospective equitable relief for an ongoing constitutional

5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc., Eric J. Spicklemire, Portrait America, Inc., A.C. Demaree, Inc., Clean Car, Inc., and The Wax Museum & Auto Sales, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

[15] Indiana Evidence Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, and provides as follows: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1403-CT-188 |April 14, 2015 Page 16 of 26  The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss made under Trial Rule 41(B) is reviewed under the clearly

Collins v. Grabler

147 Ind. App. 584 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1970

This principle to my knowledge has never been, nor should it be, qualified by a condition — "unless the trial judge disagrees". … It is, or should be well-established that a defendant-host under the Indiana guest statute, Acts 1929, ch. 201, § 1, as *605 amended and as found in Ind. Ann.

Muckenfuss v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 2022

Muckenfuss’ claims based on his requests for an in-person ASL interpreter, flashing emergency lights on all forklifts/mules, and a Sorenson Video Phone remain time barred—a subject also clearly confined by the law of the … Muckenfuss must establish that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Tyson was aware of his disability; and (3) Tyson failed to accommodate his disability reasonably. See Preddie v.