Case law

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.

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

Jackson v. Beard

146 Ind. App. 382 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1970

However, we have a completely different question presented by the appellee’s qualifying at the time he did for social security than we have in the J. C. Penney case and in Brindle v. … The direct questioning of the plaintiff and his careful answers appeared to be clearly designed to leave the jury with a false impression.

Oliver v. Fort Wayne Education Ass'n

651 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 1986

As a result of the foregoing, Defendants have been deprived of rights, privileges and immunities secured to the Defendants by the Constitution of the United States, in particular, Defendants’ rights of freedom of association … Careful scrutiny of the proceedings before Judge Ryan clearly demonstrates that the federal plaintiffs’ rights were adequately protected by the state court action.

BIOCONVERGENCE LLC v. ATTARIWALA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2020

Singh’s contacts qualify as “purposeful direction.” Our read of Commissioning Agents leaves us convinced, as Mr. … Singh’s contacts—to wit, his refusals to act—qualify as “expressed aiming.”

In Re Jongsma

402 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2009

Debtor did not qualify for the loan due to bad credit. Debtor received no value for the transfer. Schedule C, as originally filed on the date of filing of the petition, has never been amended. … Jongs-ma subsequently amended Schedule A to add the time share interests, but she has yet to amend Schedule A to add interests in two rental properties held as tenants by the entireties which clearly constitute property of

Highler v. State

834 N.E.2d 182 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2005

Moreover, to allow the exelusion of an otherwise qualified venire person simply on account of that person's religious affiliation would amount to permitting jury selection procedures that promote "state-sponsored group stereotypes … An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the cireum-stances before it. Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

Pontinen v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2021

The burden is upon the moving party to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. … Aita clearly stated that since it was Pontinen’s decision to stop taking medication, Dr. Aita would instruct him on properly weaning off the medication. Dr.

Harradon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2021

Although it may be true, as Plaintiffs argue, that “there are many factors in this case to determine whether Mya Lewis was a resident relative,” [DE 26 at 2–3], the insurance policy in question clearly states that a resident … And Plaintiffs have neither established nor asserted that Mya primarily resided at Anita’s home at the time of the collision.

XIRUM v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2023

immunity." … Plaintiffs emphasize that courts disfavor discovery stays and that it is well-established that a stay should not be granted simply because a motion to dismiss is pending. [Dkt. 147 at 5.]

Haggerty v. Wagner

39 L.R.A. 384 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1897

There is no answer she could make that would qualify or prevent the appropriation. … Two sections of the code as it then and now stands are relied upon to establish that appellee was a necessary party to the partition proceedings.

Dwyer Instruments, Inc. v. Sensocon, Inc.

873 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2012

(Product Comparison, ECF No. 108-27), and thus clearly conveys that Sensocon and Dwyer are competitors and invites purchasers to compare the different gauges. … This finding was not an explicit ruling on the protectability of the trademark prior to its registration despite the fact that "the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of Nov. 1, 2002, Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2002-HE3 v. Patricia Harris and Shawn Harris

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2013

The burden is on the movant to establish grounds for Trial Rule 60(B) relief. In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010). … An abuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous, that is, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

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).

Richard A. Childress, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2012

We accept the post- conviction court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s conclusions of law. Id. … For the sake of argument however, let us assume that the statement in question was hearsay and did not qualify as a statement of a co-conspirator.

Kyle Kaszuba v. AnnaMarie Dugan Norris, as Guardian of the Estate of Christopher Dugan, an incompetent person

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2025

“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. (quoting Turner v. … During preliminary questioning, the trial court found that Officer Heustis was “qualified under [Evidence Rule] 701 to give the jury testimony based on his perception of what he saw at the scene and

Aaron Harlow v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 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, … Accordingly, these statements are clearly relevant as they tend to show Harlow’s guilt.

Michael S. Scroggins, II v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2012

However, the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age is not necessary for it to qualify as an aggravating factor. See McCann v. … We agree with the State that this establishes his recklessness and disregard for the safety of others on the highways.

Groves v. South Bend Community School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 19, 2021

First, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … by the employer to discriminate invidiously against whites, evidence that there is something “fishy” about the facts of the case at hand, that the person ultimately hired was clearly less qualified than the plaintiff,

Pfeifer v. Armark Food Corp

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 18, 2025

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 … Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has long established “the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if