Case law

Golden v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 2025

This misunderstanding might qualify as a mistake under Rule 60(b)(1), but Golden did not file an appropriate motion within the one-year deadline set by Rule 60(c)(1), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly … court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

BELL v. ARDAGH GROUP S.A.

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

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … Sending notice to Bell's address on file was clearly "reasonably calculated" to reach her.

Breondon D. Pinkston v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … The trial court, within its discretion, determines whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion. Id. at 944.

Hardin v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2020

He filed his present Motion to Vacate on June 10, 2019, nearly five years later – clearly outside the one-year time frame. … 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.

Browne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2026

Specifically, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of … required Equifax to interpret the lease agreement, something that it is not qualified to do.

Holcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2021

Clearly, there was “no guarantee that this will make his life any better”. (Tr. 1286). … The Listings specify the criteria for qualifying impairments. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a)).

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Wiegand

808 N.E.2d 180 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2004

If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly exeluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. … The reliability of the scientific principles need not be established, but the trial court must be provided with enough information to proceed with a reasonable amount of confidence that the principles used to form the opinion

General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.

123 F. Supp. 506 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1954

This Rule clearly indicates that an interference is properly declared only when two parties claim the same patentable subject-matter. … That during that time they demonstrated the device and its operation to witnesses who were especially qualified to and did understand and appraise it and that it worked successfully.”

BRAXTON III v. INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2024

Braxton did not "clearly assert a claim in a Statement of Claims," resulting in "abandonment of that claim." [Filing No. 43 at 4.] Even if the claim were preserved, the School argues, Mr. … Braxton "cannot establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability, nor that [the School] was aware of his disability," or that the School "failed to reasonably accommodate him." [Filing No. 43 at 4-5.]

Doe v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2022

Analysis A motion in limine will be granted “only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Hawthorne Partners v. … Defendants also argue that Manning is not medically qualified to assess whether Roe was incapacitated.

Ackerman v. Schwartz

733 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1989

The misrepresentations clearly “toueh[ed] upon the reasons for the investment’s decline in value”. Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d at 549 . … While Count V clearly states a claim under subsection (b), it contains no allegation that Mr.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. v. Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

983 N.E.2d 160 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2012

Although there is an exception if a storm is extraordinary, Foster did not believe that the ice storm qualified as an extraordinary storm. Id. at 273. … Although the better practice would have been for the IURC to clearly articulate why it reached different conclusions, we find that the updated evidence presented at the second hearing justified the IURC’s decision to deny

Garrett Bridges Chaffin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2020

He does not dispute that she was qualified to testify as an expert on domestic violence issues. Instead, Chaffin claims portions of her testimony were irrelevant. … An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Paul v. State, 971 N.E.2d 172, 175 (Ind. Ct.

PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc.

831 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 1992

Schwartz’s analysis of the three offers was comparative: In my opinion, all-three offers received by PSI would qualify as “competitive offers” under Section 7.03 of the Agreement. … The evidence presented establishes that any given coal supplier occupies a unique market position.

Zainab Abbas, M.D. v. Hetep Bilal Neter-Nu

Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2025

This Court will only disturb a trial court’s ruling “if it amounts to an abuse of discretion, meaning the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or it is a misinterpretation … This Court has held that a qualified health-care provider is responsible for the payment of prejudgment interest as it is a collateral-litigation expense, even if payment would cause the health-care provider’s debt to exceed

PARRY v. STANDARD FUSEE CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 2021

Standard Fusee contends that the "undisputed facts clearly establish that [Parry's] misuse of the flare launcher was the cause of her injury, and that such misuse was not reasonably expected by Orion." … Parry clearly admits to understanding the instructions on the packaging of the product and admits that she knew it was for marine use.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of L.L., and R.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

Hershberger opined that Father was “reasonably qualified” to care for L.L. Ex. G. He also had no concerns that Father was at risk of abusing L.L. Dr. … However, his testimony at the termination hearing clearly establishes that he participated in them before that time while incarcerated at Westville. 12 Although Father testified

K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison

609 N.E.2d 17 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1993

While several of Morrison's experts testified directly that Morrison was permanently totally disabled within the meaning of the Act, these opinions were not based on evidence found in the record and were qualified by conditional … The court in Rockwell, supra, at 1040 , interpreted this passage and stated that "(als this statutory section clearly indicates, it is payments made by the employer which are subject to a credit, not payments made by an insurance

UJUNWA v. RESCARE, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2019

As her pregnancy progressed, it affected her ability to walk, lift, bend, and stand, and her pregnancy sometimes affected her ability to concentrate or think clearly (Filing No. 31-2 at 6, 10, 22; Filing No. 31-4). … ResCare argues that Adirieje cannot establish a disability, so “neither [her] discrimination claim nor [her] failure to accommodate claim can proceed, as this is the first element of both claims.” Cassimy v.

Diamond Z. Wittlief v. Tom Franklin Hirschauer, III (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2020

Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. … Subsequent-born or Legally Adopted Child(ren),” and makes no mention of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2647 | October 23, 2020 Page 21 of 35  any other custody arrangements that would qualify