Case law

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Medical Automation Systems, Inc.

771 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2011

However, Roche cites two qualifying events that it contends either one of which, properly construed, triggered its right of first refusal. … Clearly, the public has a significant interest in the enforcement of contracts and arbitration agreements.

American Medical Ass'n v. Heckler

606 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 18, 1985

. §§ 1395j-1395w, on the other hand, establishes a voluntary program of supplemental medical insurance benefits for certain medical services, including physicians’ services. … Coate and Huber will be compelled to cease providing treatment to Medicare beneficiaries” and that the physicians “have clearly alleged that they will stop treating plaintiffs unless enforcement of the freeze is halted.”

Board of Commissioners v. Board of Commissioners

27 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1901

If the right is doubtful, it must first be established by an ordinary action at law, where the right is such as admits of its establishment in that way. … S. 1881) continued in use, and the provision therefor was not amended until 1891 (Acts 1891, p. 376, §534 Bxirns 1894), when a mode of selection by the jury commissioners of qualified persons, preparatory to the striking

Board of Commissioners v. Great Lakes Transfer, LLC

888 N.E.2d 784 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2008

seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The Indiana Supreme Court recently clarified that factual findings linked to a ruling on a motion to transfer venue are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and rulings of law are reviewed de novo.

Amy R. Hockett v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2014

“It is well established that ‘[t]he element of intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone, and it is well established that knowledge and intent may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.’” … Hockett claimed that doctors suspected that K.H. had and that he was being tested for, acid reflux, lactose intolerance, food allergies, leukemia, an immune disorder, a blood disorder, and kidney stones.

S.R. v. R.S.Y. and T.L.Y.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2013

Neither will be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Id. … Considering only the evidence favorable to the judgment, a trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous when there is no evidence or reasonable inferences supporting them, and a judgment is clearly erroneous when

Jonah Long v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2014

An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic of the facts and circumstances. Id. … To qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face. Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

John R. Myers II v. State of Indiana

33 N.E.3d 1077 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2015

State, 448 N.E.2d 665, 667 (Ind. 1983) (lay witnesses may not give opinions where jury is well qualified to form an opinion).” Appellant’s Brief at 28-29. … For these reasons, a decision not to pursue the Owings theory would clearly reflect a reasonable strategic judgment.

Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana and Angel Badillo

33 N.E.3d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2015

“[V]oters who are lawfully qualified to participate in our democratic process may not be disenfranchised except by their own willful or deliberate act to the extent that one who did not receive the … Thus, “[t]he existence of a fact which disqualifies, and of the law which makes that fact operate to disqualify, must be brought home so closely and so clearly to the knowledge or notice of the elector, as

Jordan Ex Rel. Jones v. Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n

813 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 1993

I, § 23 of Indiana’s Constitution provides: The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, cannot equally belong to all citizens. … See, Haas, 289 N.E.2d at 501 (“It is well established that the rights intended to be protected under both constitutional provisions are identical.”); IHSAA v.

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana

972 N.E.2d 853 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2012

That provision establishes criminal penalties for persons who violate the laws regulating the carrying of handguns and elevates those penalties from misdemeanor to felony status under certain conditions, including when the … The statutes draw temporal distinctions (a non-handgun related serious violent felony more than fifteen years old would have no impact under the handgun statute, whereas it would still qualify under the SVF statute); geographic

Resolution Trust Corp. v. O'bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer

886 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 1995

The director defendants assert that these attestations establish that they did carefully consider those transactions. … The court concludes that Harris’s experiences representing and serving on the boards of financial institutions qualify him to offer expert testimony concerning the duties of directors to such institutions.

MCFARLANE v. CAROTHERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2019

McFarlane provides no further analysis beyond asserting that this is “clearly” indicative of a widespread practice. Mr. … McFarlane explains, as of the time of briefing, discovery was still proceeding and the parties had not officially determined who else may also qualify for inclusion the class.

Tabitha Edwards v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2014

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, … The trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.

Martin v. White

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2022

Rethlake based on absolute immunity and because Mr. … The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Jane Doe

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2023

“Credentialing” refers to the process of determining whether a doctor is qualified to be on the medical staff. See, e.g., Hall v. Jennie Edmundson Mem’l Hosp., 812 N.W.2d 681, 683 n.1 (Iowa 2012). … In the instant case, the record clearly establishes that, for purposes of the Act, John Doe II was a patient, and both Cavins and the Hospital were health care providers.

Cedric S. Ware v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law. Id. … United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 (1948) (noting that, if the presence of odor is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a

Newsome v. State

686 N.E.2d 868 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1997

The onus is upon a defendant to establish that a witness is not competent. Id. … Adherence to the old analysis, which clearly has been abandoned, will cause confusion to the bench and bar in Indiana.

Hogan v. Hershberger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 25, 2025

§ 1915A, the court must screen the amended 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 … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

MATTHEW H THOMAS DAVIS v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · May 3, 2023

But then, contrary to the written agreement, the court qualified its statement by saying: The one exception is because you have a plea agreement that provides the court some discretion about where your sentence … App. 2008) (finding no valid waiver because the trial court clearly stated at the plea hearing that the defendant’s agreement allowed an appeal).