Case law

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 27, 2024

“A party moving to compel production carries the initial burden of establishing, with specificity, that the requested documents are relevant.” Greenbank v. Great Am. … Any disputes that remain unresolved must be clearly delineated on the parties’ status report.

Phillips v. State

441 N.E.2d 201 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1982

also informed Phillips that he would have the right to order into court evidence or witnesses in his favor, the right to require the State to prove the charge against him beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to have a qualified … Accordingly, we hold that the trial court committed no error by failing to state a reason for imposing upon Phillips an aggravated sentence besides clearly indicating in the record that the sentence was imposed pursuant to

Developmental Services Alternatives, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

915 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2009

I also did not find a failure to base it upon substantial and reliable evidence or that it was clearly erroneous on the basis of being contrary to applicable Federal and State law. … Id. at 1284 (footnote omitted) (emphases added). 19 *186 The rule barring post hoe rationalizations as announced in Scheid is now well established in Indiana. See, e.g., 20th Century Fiberglass v.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,, N.A.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2013

The only possible purpose of admitting the Assignment of Mortgage would be to dispute the facts established by the stipulation. … activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony or affidavit of the custodian or other qualified

Joseph Lee Smith v. Margie Lee Smith (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2017

The court did not err in attempting to balance the parties’ interests by establishing a realistic payment plan. … Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1612-DR-2724 | September 1, 2017 Page 14 of 20 [34] The explicit language of the settlement agreement, which was accepted by both parties, states clearly

Cunningham v. Rea Magnet Wire Company, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2022

department than Foster and “could do every job in the office,” but he conceded that Rea viewed Foster as more qualified than him. … Cunningham Establishes a Prima Facie Case Cunningham easily establishes the first three elements of a prima facie case of age discrimination.

QUALITY LEASING CO INC Inc v. INTERNATIONAL METALS LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 2021

To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, "a plaintiff must establish that a measurable benefit has been conferred on the defendant under such circumstances that the defendant's retention of the benefit without payment … This amount of capital is clearly insufficient for a corporation engaging in the type of transactions conducted by Valley Forge.

Gray v. State

159 Ind. App. 200 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1974

EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GUILT OF DEFENDANT Gray argues that the State failed to prove that the pistol he carried was loaded. … State (1932), 203 Ind. 241, 245 , 179 N.E. 718 , clearly implies that the Supreme Court possessed that power long before the new judicial article was ratified by the voters.

Kroger Co. v. Haun

177 Ind. App. 403 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1978

That determination is not to be made solely on the basis of the user’s own statements but rather upon the jury’s assessment of all of the facts established by the evidence. … The situation at hand fails to qualify under either condition. Haun *421 had a right to expect that Kroger would maintain properly-functioning equipment for his use until sufficient notice to the contrary was received.

Gonzalez Medina v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2021

To qualify for equitable tolling, a petitioner must show: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently; and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. Holland v. … To establish diligent pursuit, a defendant must “demonstrate that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing his rights throughout the limitations period and until he finally filed his untimely” motion to vacate.

GREER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 6, 2024

"To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity … Greer must establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability by demonstrating that he has "a (1) physical impairment (2) that substantially limited (3) one or more major life activities."

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2021

LCI and IDS claim that “the record clearly establishes that LCI/IDS is the exclusive seller of the covered products, not the owner or the exclusive licensee of all rights of the IDS patents.” [DE 182 at 21.] … But “[t]o qualify as an exclusive license, an agreement must clearly manifest the patentee’s promise to refrain from granting to anyone else a license in the area of exclusivity.” Textile Productions, Inc. v.

BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP. v. PALMER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2019

“[I]f a covenant is clearly separated into parts, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not, the covenant may be divided according to the blue-pencil doctrine.” Clark's Sales & Serv., Inc. v. … Palmer qualify as trade secrets or confidential information.

State ex rel. Bingham v. Home Brewing Co.

182 Ind. 75 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1914

The judicial history of the State at least as far back as 1843 shows clearly that every action to forfeit corporate franchises has been instituted and prosecuted under statutory provisions and that when that part of the statutes … The office of a proviso in a statute is generally, either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or to restrain its generality. Simpson v. State, ex rel. (1913), 179 Ind. 196 , 99 N. E. 980 .

Prohosky v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

584 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1984

We hold that the trial court’s judgment awarding damages is directly opposite the correct conclusion, clearly erroneous, and contrary to law. … Accordingly, it significantly modifies the common law as established in Wiggins. Further, the statute establishes a duty on well owners in the area to comply with DNR guidelines.

Andre v. Bendix Corp.

584 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 11, 1984

On appeal, the district court’s decision on promotion was upheld on the basis that the male who received the promotion had been implicitly found to be better qualified. … Franz’s conduct is most clearly demonstrated by his handwritten “Three Month Employee” evaluation dated March 6, 1979. As Franz admitted, there was nothing positive in it. (Facts 29, 30).

WILLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2026

A claim is considered technically exhausted by procedural default if it was not raised in the state court and is now clearly procedurally barred under state law. See Woodford v. … Because Willis cannot establish that he lacks the ability to raise his claims in state post-conviction proceedings, he cannot establish this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the claims in the amended

Geramy Ridley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2012

to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Sep 17 2012, 9:01 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind. 2002) (“To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.

Nieto v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 4, 2024

Nieto was clearly aware of the 1-year statute of limitations to file a section 2255 petition, as he states his section 2255 motion was due on October 11, 2023. [Id. at 1.] … specifics as to the actual dates and number of days he was possibly denied access to the law library or had an inability to access his legal paperwork, and courts have routinely found that such a bare assertion does not qualify

George Sanders v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012

In evaluating these claims, we use the following two part test: (1) whether the unraised issues are significant and obvious from the face of the record; and (2) whether the unraised issues are clearly stronger than the … The trial court has discretion to decide whether a witness qualifies as a representative pursuant to Evid.