Case law

Livesay v. National Credit Systems Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2025

Because “[t]he self-serving opinion of the [P]laintiff, clearly not an expert or an objective observer,” does not create a genuine dispute of fact for trial, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not met her burden … However, as set forth above, the Plaintiff has not otherwise established that the Defendant’s communication was unlawful because she has not established that the Defendant violated the FDCPA under § 1692e or § 1692f, nor

Bellmore v. State

602 N.E.2d 111 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1992

Beginning January 1, 1992, we now require the appointment of two qualified attorneys to represent an indigent person where the death penalty is sought. Ind.Crim.R. 24(B). … The defendant concedes that each of these contentions have been clearly rejected to date. We decline his invitation to reconsider these decisions. 14.

Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence

165 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 29, 2016

The State’s conduct clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin. … The State’s conduct clearly constitutes national origin discrimination.

Prudence Life Insurance v. Morgan

138 Ind. App. 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1966

It is our opinion that the record is replete with evidence conclusively establishing the following facts: 1. that the appellee was not personally aware of the fact that he was afflicted with emphysema prior to March 5, 1962 … However, in this case the record clearly indicates that the appellant insurance company cancelled, repudiated and rescinded the “policy as of the date of issue.”

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

Town of Darmstadt and Bob Stoops, Town Council President v. CWK Investments-Hillsdale, LLC, C. Wayne Kinney, and the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Board of Zoning Appeals

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2018

Code § 36-7-4-1602(c) (“A person is entitled to judicial review of a nonfinal zoning decision only if the person establishes both of the following: (1) Immediate and irreparable harm. (2) No adequate remedy … Parkhurst: Clearly, the time for appeal wouldn’t start until findings were made. Ms. Kasha: Right. Mr. Bohleber: Right, and that’s my recollection.

State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Flynn

161 Ind. 554 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1903

This bond was duly approved by the board of commissioners of said county, and on the - day of November, 1894, Elynn, having been duly qualified, entered upon the discharge of his official duties, and continued to hold said … Tbe bond in suit is conditioned substantially in accordance with §7928 Burns 1901, §5842 Horner 1901, and we may again assert that, in order to establish a liability thereon in this action, tbe money in controversy must be

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.

BURCH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2025

Dist., 604 F.3d 490, 494, 502 (7th Cir. 2010) (an employee being given the choice to resign or be fired qualifies as constructive discharge). … Burch cannot establish constructive discharge without adequately pleading such conditions. See id. at 534–36.

Genario Garcia v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 25, 2017

We review its rulings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … “‘To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.’” Id. (quoting Casselman v.

Freddie Rhodes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2016

Decision shall not be Court of Appeals and Tax Court regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … “There was simply nothing about the Appellants’ conduct or the conduct of their cohorts that was ‘clearly the mediate or immediate cause’ of their friend’s death.”

Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Studer

555 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 14, 2008

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Thus, Douglas is clearly distinguishable and does not affect our analysis here.

United States v. $299,745.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2025

Accepting, for present purposes, that either iteration qualifies as a pure question of law, see In re Text Messaging Antitr. Litig., 630 F.3d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 2010), Mr. … Garcia contends that he "is not seeking [an] interlocutory appeal on a well-set- tled or clearly established question of law" (though he offers no further, meaningful elab- oration). Dkt. 18 at 6; e.g., dkt. 21 at 3.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Neville

434 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1982

Neville did incur medical expense for a circulatory condition, we would be unable to qualify this claim for benefits.” Record at 171. … Thus, the amount of the claim is clearly ascertainable.

Little Arm Inc. v. Adams

13 F. Supp. 3d 893 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2014

Due Process The void for vagueness doctrine stems from “the basic due process principle that a law is unconstitutional if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Hegwood v. … Though the court does not question this well-established principle, it is not applicable here.

A.J.'s Automotive Sales, Inc. v. Freet

725 N.E.2d 955 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2000

As a previous transferor, Newman is not immune from liability. Id. … Clearly, these defenses do not comport with the strong public policy concerns set forth in Simmons Auto Sales, Inc.

Denison & Northern Railway Co. v. Raney-Alton Mercantile Co.

3 Indian Terr. 104 · Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · Oct 26, 1899

Moran Scott was appointed receiver by the court, who qualified, and took possession of the right of way, and all of the assets of the railway company. … It is clearly shown that the railway company was cognizant of their acts and conduct; that it was officially informed thereof by Mr.

Walton v. United States

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

The application notes to the guidelines include a whole slew of factors which should be taken into consideration when determining whether a defendant qualifies for a decrease in offense levels. … As I’ve already mentioned, “[a] defendant's failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Carter v.

COYLE NISSAN, LLC v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2020

Because NNA has not informed Coyle how a dealership qualifies for this incentive program, Coyle is not aware of any established criteria to qualify for the selective incentives. … Thus, Coyle has not qualified to receive the selective incentives. However, other similarly situated dealerships have qualified for and participated in the incentive program.

MCCRAY v. DETAMORE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2021

screening order, our court must dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if it is determined to be legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … We nonetheless provided Plaintiff an opportunity to draft and file an amended complaint that set out his claims more clearly and thus satisfied Rule 8. C.