Case law

Hoemig v. State

522 N.E.2d 392 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1988

Clearly, an error on the part of the trial judge in instructing the jury is likely to be corrected if the defense counsel informs the judge of his objections. … Casey was not qualified to render such an opinion. At trial, the defendant only objected that there was no evidence supporting the implication in the question that Danny Hobbs was laying down rather than standing up.

Huizar

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2026

To prove a negligent violation of the FCRA, Huizar must establish “actual damages.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1). … To qualify for a conventional loan, Huizar’s median credit score needed to be above 620. [DE 161-1 at 4].

DuRocher v. Riddell, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2015

Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief seeks an injunction requiring Defendants, among other things, to establish a medical monitoring program financed by a trust fund established to pay for medical monitoring of all past and … Duncan , however, is clearly distinguishable from this case. Plaintiff in Duncan brought a claim for negligence related to defendant’s policy that exposed employees to secondhand smoke. Id. at 603 .

Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana

84 N.E.3d 706 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2017

[20] Further, “it is well-established that due process requires that a defendant be given notice of the crime or crimes with which he is charged so that he can prepare his defense. … Although the State’s instruction does not qualify the participation language, any error was harmless due to the strong evidence of appellant’s guilt. Hurt v.

Grand Design RV LLC v. THOR Industries Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2022

Judge Gotsch ultimately found that Grand Design failed to establish that the conversations between Mr. Cramer and the Grand Design attorneys triggered attorney-client privilege. … Cramer shared actually qualified as confidential information and also demonstrates that Mr. Cramer was not operating under any binding confidentiality agreement.

Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. North Vernon Drop Forge, Inc.

917 N.E.2d 1258 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2009

The unintended consequence of an intentional act may qualify as an "occurrence" for insurance purposes. Harvey, 842 N.E.2d at 1291 . … [A] claim clearly excluded from policy coverage cannot be turned into a covered risk by styling the pleadings to fit the policy language."); Jim *1272 Barna Log Sys. Midwest, Inc. v. Gen. Cas. Ins.

Clinton E. Sams v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before Mar 07 2012, 8:54 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … Sams did, in fact, qualify as habitual substance offender, however, if he signed that existing plea agreement, it would not be filed.

In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

758 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 2010

“Where the facts clearly establish that the possible employee is the subordinate party, the relation is one of employment.” Id. at § 4(3). Factors used to determine whether the drivers are subordinate parties are: a. … There is quite a leap from having no right at all to hire assistants to saying that Louisiana holds that if a worker has a qualified right to hire, that qualified right to hire is equivalent to no right to hire.

Jason A. Reber v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2012

FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Apr 18 2012, 8:58 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense … An abuse of discretion has occurred when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Arbuckle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 12, 2026

1915A, I must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In the prison context, written requests for interviews and/or grievances clearly constitute First Amendment protected activity. Id.; see also Gomez v.

Richards v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 29, 2024

“[A] procedural default [bars] consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review [when] the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state … As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012); see also Coleman v.

TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2025

She also experiences a severe compulsion to self-harm, depression, suicidal ideations, and an inability to think clearly and make decisions. She has filed several lawsuits against prison officials in the past. … The Federal Rules of Evidence establish that a court may only "judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable 4 Cases which Ms.

Trimble

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 2026

In the prison context, written requests for interviews and/or grievances clearly constitute First Amendment protected activity. Id.; see also Gomez v. … Long, 482 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases and establishing a feces and blood covered cell was inhumane).

Matter of Briggs

502 N.E.2d 879 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1987

This Court appointed a second Hearing Officer and, upon Respondent’s objections, removed him and appointed the present Hearing Officer who qualified on February 24, 1982. … The Respondent was also charged with attempting to collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A) and (B).

Collier v. State

846 N.E.2d 340 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2006

The court observed, Appellant clearly stated his intentions to the parents of the children. … Third, although Collier made no post-arrest confession to the police, he did make pre-arrest statements to Cameron clearly delineating his intent.

Campbell v. City of Indianapolis

155 Ind. 186 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1900

The first section of this statute of 1871 provides that “In all cities of this State of 30,000 or more inhabitants, according to the United States census for the year 1870, there shall be elected, by the qualified electors … It is established by the decisions of this court heretofore cited that this proposition is not true.

Robert Klinglesmith v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2013

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … were also used to establish the essential elements of battery.

Kyle E. Bowers v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED Jul 03 2012, 9:29 am establishing … The Court thus concluded that the defendant’s crimes did not qualify as an episode of criminal conduct within the meaning of Indiana 4  Code section 35-50-1-2(b

Kurt Gregory v. Carol Gregory

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2012

Kurt has not established that Carol willfully disobeyed the MSA or PTG on this point. … Namely, it is an open-ended provision that clearly contemplates the submission of any future disagreements between the parties regarding their children to arbitration.

Pinkowski v. Calumet Township of Lake County

852 N.E.2d 971 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2006

On the other hand, the Lessors claimed that they were entitled to summary judgment because the correspondence that they received from the Township never qualified as an option to purchase the real estate. … However, we must conclude that the language of the November 8 correspondence failed to "clearly and unequivocally" do so under the specific terms of the Option.