Case law

Ind. State Conference of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Lawson

326 F. Supp. 3d 646 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 8, 2018

Granting a preliminary injunction is "an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Roland Mach. Co. v. … The Defendants assert that Indiana has gone to great lengths to ensure that it is both actively and justifiably removing those from its rolls who are no longer qualified to vote.

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Apex Biotechnology Corp.

374 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2005

This is clearly within the subject matter of the ’564 patented invention. … Clearly by the time Dr.

BECKETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2026

If the moving party establishes that there is a valid arbitration agreement, the FAA provides a strong presumption that arbitration "should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration … He clearly did on three separate occasions.

Culver Community Teachers Association v. Indiana Education Employment Relations Board

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2020

, we may only set aside an agency action if “(1) [it is] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The trial court’s findings and conclusions thereon dismissing Nettle Creek and Jay Classroom I as dicta are clearly erroneous.

Gaston v. Hazeltine

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

Such judgments qualify as opinions and mental impressions of Grange’s counsel, which are explicitly protected from disclosure under the work-product doctrine. … Based on the evidence produced to the Court, Kedron has not clearly established whether the crime-fraud exception applies to communications before Hyde inspected the lighting system in July 2016 between Grange Insurance

J.P. Ex Rel. Todd Popson v. West Clark Community Schools

230 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 19, 2002

The question of whether an approach used in any particular case “qualifies” as a sound educational practice is fact-specific. Moreover, the determination requires educational expertise. … The Court notes that it is clearly within a hearing officer’s prerogative to order minor adjustments in a student’s proposed IEP, without invalidating the whole thing.

Crowley v. Galperin

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 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 mentions having filed a grievance about his medical care but does not clearly identify whom he sent the grievance to.

Performance Matters Associates and Conseco Marketing, LLC v. Patrick A. Fortune

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2012

The burden of establishing that this is the explanation of the error in birthdates is upon the Defendants by a preponderance of the evidence. … In each of these four instances, the inaccurate birth date made the applicant appear to be eligible for a policy for which the applicant was actually too old to qualify. . . . *** 68.

Roy Hudnall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. … Authentication of an exhibit can be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Id.

Brunaugh v. State

173 Ind. 483 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1910

The instruction in question is clearly applicable to the evidence.in the record. … Rep. 234 , it is held that the innocence of the agent through whom the crime is perpetrated is a question for the jury, and that where the evidence tends only to establish guilt or guilty knowledge of the agent, but clearly

Oszust v. Town of St. John

212 F. Supp. 3d 770 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2016

That clearly suffices to plead a materially adverse action in this circuit. See, e.g., Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662, 677 (7th Cir.2008); Moser v. Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 406 F.3d 895 , 904 (7th Cir.2005). … For a government employee, it requires establishing that the plaintiff spoke as a citizen rather than as an employee. Id.

Higgason v. Indiana Department of Correction

864 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2007

An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.2001). … Indiana Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

DeKalb County Airport Authority v. DeKalb County Board of Zoning Appeals, Speedway Sand & Gravel, Inc., Jeffrey Bauman, Custer Farms, Inc., and Ed Schneider (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2018

and concluded that the Board’s decision: is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; is not contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … appeal is that it has standing because it has suffered a “special injury.”8 7 The Airport maintains that, as the owner and operator of a public use airport, [the Airport] clearly

Keller v. Lloyd & McDaniel PLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 2, 2019

If the proposed amendment is not clearly futile, denying leave to amend on this ground would be improper. … L&M has arguedthat the conversation between Keller and the employee does not qualify as the requisite “initial communication” that must take place in order for § 1692g to be invoked.

Hutchison v. Wells

719 F. Supp. 1435 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 1989

Absent formal judicial relief, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test established in Harrington v. DeVito, 656 F.2d 264, 266-67 (7th Cir.1981) to qualify as a prevailing party. … This clearly contravenes the congressional purpose of section 1988 as well as Rule 68, as discussed in the text. 17 .

Wabash Valley Electric Co. v. Singleton

1 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 1932

The master heard the testimony of these engineers, as well as the testimony of all of the other witnesses, and is qualified to determine the weight and credit to be given to such testimony. … When it is recalled, in the instant case, that an amount in the sum of approximately $18,000 for this purpose is added to the sum of $84,569, the value of the physical property, it would clearly indicate that such amount

Skolnick v. State

72 Ind. Dec. 199 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1979

Pi-varnik intends to further falsely imprison Skolnick, all to be done by Pivarnik under the sham and pretense of legal proceeding, without authority or jurisdiction, and in violation of Skolnick’s rights, privileges, and immunities … Nevertheless the record before us in the instant case clearly portrays the nature of the conduct for which Skolnick was convicted. That conduct is, on its face, directly contumacious..

In re Coy

31 F. 794 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · Jul 16, 1887

then and there an officer of said election, to-wit, an inspector of said election at the Second precinct of the Thirteenth ward of the city of Indianapolis aforesaid, having been thereto duly appointed, and having duly qualified … Tie holds them in trust for the public; and his duty to retain them in his own exclusive custody is quite as clearly defined as if the statute had so declared in express words.

Price v. State

622 N.E.2d 954 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1993

Put another way, there is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate. See Palmer, supra, at 65-66. … Clearly, then, abating excessive noise is an objective our legislature may legitimately pursue. This does not, however, end our inquiry.

Wall v. State

51 Ind. 453 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1875

This part of the instruction is incorrect, and there is nothing in the other parts of the instruction to qualify or correct it. … Where the necessity is clearly apparent, and is such as would convince a reasonable man that it actually existed, and he ’believed that it did so exist, it is sufficient; as when one antagonist angrily approaches another