Case law

American Commercial Lines, LLC v. Northeast Maritime Institute, Inc.

588 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 1, 2008

Conceding that contract was executed in Indiana, NMI nonetheless argues that a contract alone does not establish the minimum contacts necessary to satisfy due process. … As the substance of Judge Stearns's opinion shows, however, this is not a situation that qualifies for issue preclusion because the issues are not the same.

Billy Russell v. State of Indiana

981 N.E.2d 1280 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. … In such a case, the defendant must establish that the failure to give an instruction constituted fundamental error. Id.

Danny's Sports Bar Chicago Style Pizza v. Todd Schuman

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 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, or the law of the case … An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s denial of the motion is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the order. Id.

McGrath v. Everest National Insurance

668 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2010

Local Rule 7.1(a)-(b) Clearly, motion practice calls for a motion, a response, and a reply. See Goltz v. … See American International Adjustment Co., 86 F.3d at 1466 (“A lawyer does not buy immunity from a malpractice suit by hiring an expert to call his pratfalls ‘strategic.’ ”).

United States v. Danser

110 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 1999

Clearly, these statements were untrue. … Rather, the inquiry is only whether a defendant has established insanity as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 17 .

Reedus v. McDonough

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2022

Still more, if Case 1 survives the motion to dismiss, consolidating the two cases—at least for the purposes of discovery—clearly furthers judicial economy. … Finally, at least at this point, Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that her potential damages would be unfairly limited due to Title VII’s statutory cap does not establish that she would be prejudiced by consolidation.

Taylor v. Carter

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

High-level officials cannot be expected to respond to “clearly localized, non- systemic violations.” Antonelli v. … Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1429 (7th Cir. 1996) (dismissing claims against sheriff and director of Department of Corrections because they involved “clearly localized” issues).

Patty Garcia v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 14 2012, 9:15 am court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind. Ct.

Jason Myers v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2012

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 of the case. … However, the April 4 amendment at issue clearly was not an amendment of substance; it was an amendment to form, governed by Indiana Code section 35-34-1-5(c), which states: Upon motion of the prosecuting attorney

Bartole v. Sheriff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2025

Bartole’s allegations are clearly a challenge to the decision to confiscate his tablet device rather than a challenge to whether the Sheriff has the constitutional authority to hold him in custody in connection with his … Only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing Section 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).

Higginbottom Ex Rel. Davis v. Keithley

103 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 1999

No. 2144, 45 F.Supp.2d 664, 670 (D.Minn.1999) (despite state’s recognition that personnel handbooks may qualify as contracts in the employer-employee context, that state’s law has never suggested that a student/school district … Even assuming that Brunson knew plaintiffs’ socio-economic status and that plaintiffs were from low-income families (neither of these propositions having been clearly drawn from the record), plaintiffs fail to demonstrate

Demetrius Damon Taylor v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2013

Instead, in attempting to establish a non-hearsay basis for Det. … It requires the defendant to establish that the misconduct “[made] a fair trial impossible or constitute[d] clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process” or that the misconduct

Polycon Industries Inc v. R & B Plastics Machinery, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2025

But Long was clearly involved in Polycon’s attempts to qualify and produce Ecolab products after 2017 and before the present litigation began in 2019. … “The business records exception to the hearsay rule clearly does not require that the witness have personal knowledge of the entries in the records.

Hildebrand v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2021

DISABILITY STANDARD To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that she suffers from a “disability,” which is defined as an inability to engage in any substantial gainful … Moreover, in addition to her muscle weakness, Plaintiff’s steroid therapy potentially contributed to a weakened immune system and related illnesses that may have required absences as well.

Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider

15 N.E.3d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2014

This case highlights just how inexact property valuation is; the trial court was faced with two qualified experts who presented diametrically opposed opinions, supported by extensive reports and reasoning, as to the value … It is unclear, for example, whom the trial court might name as the voting trustee, which ordinarily is agreed upon by the shareholders establishing a voting trust.

Indiana Grocery Co. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc.

684 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 1988

All these rules are qualified as not helpful if predation can be shown. … finding of no specific intent was clearly erroneous in light of the plaintiffs’ failure to establish these other factors.

MARTE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 18, 2026

Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353, 363 (2009) ("[A] political subdivision, created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the Federal Constitution which it may invoke in opposition to … "[T]he powers and duties" of the sheriff's office are then "established by the [Indiana] Legislature." Delk v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Delaware Cnty., 503 N.E.2d 436, 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987); see Ind.

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools

207 F. Supp. 3d 862 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2016

Second, by qualifying this statement as representing the School’s intent “[a]t this time,” the School does not make clear what, if anything, might affect that intent. … The audience applauded when the nativity scene appeared on stage, but that reaction was not prompted in any way by the show itself (the choir began singing even before the applause concluded), and was quite clearly in response

DirecTV, Inc. v. Ferguson

328 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 2004

The Defendants argue that the experts designated by DIRECTV are not qualified to testify as such. However, in reading the affidavits of Barr, Rissler, and Walker, this Court cannot agree. … If this is true, then even though the Defendants themselves may not have intercepted the transmissions, they were clearly involved in such interception.

Taylor v. State

840 N.E.2d 324 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 17, 2006

Finding that the evidence “clearly support[ed]” the jury’s conclusion that Taylor was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirmed Taylor’s conviction. Id. at 1047. … Because Taylor has failed to show that this affidavit “is not merely impeaching” and that “it will probably produce a different result at retrial,” the affidavit does not qualify as newly- discovered evidence, and the post-conviction