Case law

VW v. South Bend Community School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2024

In negligence cases, when “there is no genuine issue of material fact and any one of these elements is clearly absent, summary judgment is appropriate.” Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 403 (Ind. 2011). … To establish the second element, parties must typically “present expert testimony establishing that standard of care.” Troutwine, 854 N.E.2d at 902 (citing Snyder v. Cobb, 638 N.E.2d 442, 445-46 (Ind. Ct.

Jake E. Estes v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2013

The court dismissed the habitual substance offender charge based upon a motion by the State, which indicated that Estes did not qualify under the statute. … The other instruction stated: Evidence which merely tends to establish a suspicion of guilt, or evidence which tends to establish a mere opportunity to commit the offense charged, is clearly

EARL v. COLVIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2024

Once step four is satisfied, the burden shifts to the SSA to establish that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy." Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995). … It is well-known that an ALJ may not interpret an MRI that has not been reviewed by a medical expert, as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clearly stated in Akin v.

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. v. WILDLIFE IN NEED AND WILDLIFE IN DEED, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 2020

But these affidavits do not create a genuine dispute because—like Stark—none of the volunteers is qualified to give expert testimony. … A healthy immune system provides defense against disease and parasites through the rest of the Cub's life. (Id.).

Haltom v. Tiernan & Hoover, Inc.

976 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

Sub-Part B uses the article “the” to identify the employer, clearly referring to the same employer referenced in SubPart A who “ceas[ed] to have an obligation to contrib *1019 ute under the plan.” … If Congress sought to characterize this situation as a complete withdrawal within the construction industry, it would have included in SubPart B reference(s) to “the employer” or another employer qualifying as that employer

PUCILLO v. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2021

Pucillo argues there are no factual disputes, and NCS's letters clearly violate Sections 1692e and 1692c of the FDCPA. … Nor does stress by itself with no physical manifestations and no qualified medical diagnosis amount to a concrete harm. Cf. United States v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J.

United States v. Walters (In Re Walters)

176 B.R. 835 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 1994

Walters was qualified as an expert witness respecting the trading and valuation of rare numismatic coins. … The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from West, and thus the Court concludes that Dr.

Robert Brandon v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2012

For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution, two offenses are identical and one must be vacated if the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish all of … On rare occasions, an appellate court may determine as a matter of law that certain injuries do not qualify as “serious bodily injury.” See Davis v.

Cooper v. School City of Hammond

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2023

No one disputes that M.D. is a qualified individual with a disability. [DE 86-1 at 1.] … Under Title II of the ADA, to claim a public program or service violates the ADA, the plaintiff has to establish: (1) he has a qualifying disability; (2) he is being denied the benefits of services for which the public entity

Carter v. State

155 Ind. App. 10 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

Where the evidence presented is sufficient to establish a necessarily lesser included crime, 9-1817 authorizes conviction of the necessarily lesser included offense. Watford v. State, supra ; Burnett v. … Act, but in the words of the robbery act, plus "feloniously", which clearly alleged a taking from the person with intent to deprive the owner of the use and benefit of his property.

JERLES v. STALLARD & ASSOCIATES, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2020

The Court need not address in depth whether any dispute of material fact exists because Stallard has not met its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3 Because Stallard does not clearly … Stallard also argues that "the hiring of Barker," who was more qualified than Jerles, eliminated Stallard's need for an accounting employee.

Jamerson v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 2022

The Court sentenced him to 144 months of imprisonment after finding that he qualified as an armed career criminal. (DE 56.) Mr. … Here, the record clearly shows that Mr. Jamerson is not entitled to relief.

Eric Davis v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2014

The evidence clearly indicates that Davis became argumentative and belligerent with Officer Lawalin the moment Officer Lawalin arrived on the scene. … After a clearly intoxicated and very heated Davis said “f**k you” to Officer Lawalin, Officer Lawalin admonished Davis to “calm down.” Id. at 21-22.

Richardson v. State

717 N.E.2d 32 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1999

Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994) (equal privileges and immunities); Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (1993) (free speech). Indeed, all of the opinions in this case tread this independent path. … These Indiana authorities find collateral estoppel notions to be constitutionally based, as Ashe clearly implied.

Carter v. Robinson

977 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Thus, expert testimony must be supported by appropriate validation or “good grounds” based on what is known establishing a standard of eviden-tiary reliability. Id. Focusing on the lack of appropriate validation, Dr. … The trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case, or if it misinterprets the applicable law. Id. at 976 .

Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. Barker

169 Ind. 670 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1908

Barker, his widow, qualified as administratrix, and brought this action for the benefit of herself and children. … It is a well-established rule of pleading that a complaint for negligence against a railroad company must show by proper averments the violation of a duty owing to the plaintiff by the company, or by some one else for whose

Metro Holdings One, Llc, Exproman, Inc., and Quaker Sales & Distribution v. Flynn Creek Partner, Llc

25 N.E.3d 141 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

Indeed, vendors traditionally have qualified for the remedy of specific performance of a real estate contract after a purchaser’s breach. See 14 James H. … On appeal, another panel of this Court held that the trial court’s judgment that the seller was entitled to specific performance was “clearly erroneous” because the seller had not made the requisite showing that he had

Yurchak v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2022

Nasr clearly found the same limitation in the portion of the form that references the C2 criterion. … Similarly, part-time work does not preclude establishing disability. Id. at 637.

Washington Township v. Parkview Memorial Hospital

144 Ind. App. 359 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1969

The foregoing is clearly consistent with Indiana law as enunciated in the cases we have heretofore reviewed. … Again I wish to emphasize that my dissent does not advocate that we hold that an employed man who could not qualify as a poor person for the purchase of food, clothing and shelter can not, nevertheless, qualify as a poor

Lbm Realty, Llc, d/b/a Summer Place Apartments, an Indiana Corporation v. Hillary Mannia, an Indiana Resident

19 N.E.3d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

Is it fair to say that you had no understanding one way or the other whether you would be insured or qualify as an uninsured person under the apartment complex’s property insurance? … Furthermore, LBM asserts that because the lease in this case clearly permits subrogation, this Court should reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mannia.