Case law

Agustin Martinez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2012

FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 05 2012, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of … R. 702(a), “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

Henderson v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 18, 2021

We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of §2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions. … The Warden responds that this argument isn’t a valid basis for habeas relief because the right to an instruction on a lesser-included offense in non-capital cases isn’t clearly established federal law.

ANANIAS v. ST. VINCENT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP - INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2022

Certain harms, such as physical or monetary injury, readily qualify as concrete. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2204 (2021). … The right to practice religion is well established and highly litigated in the United States.

STRINGHAM v. CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 4, 2024

This Court cannot say that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the Board are clearly erroneous. See id. at *6. … Section 23, the privileges and immunities provision, states: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to

Farrell v. Buss

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

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it 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 from such … He does not clearly explain what this means, but it can be discerned from context that the prison hires inmate workers to provide assistance in monitoring inmates who are on suicide watch. Mr.

Scott W. Schwichtenberg v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2012

“To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Merritt v. State, 822 N.E.2d 642, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Benson v. … We note that the fundamental error exception to the waiver ruler is an extremely narrow one that is available only when the record reveals clearly blatant 7 violations of

Winston v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2023

is a medical expert familiar with the Social Security Administration regulations, and provided a detailed explanation and analysis of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency medical consultants are highly qualified … Clearly, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s various impairments at length and assessed limits supported by the medical source opinions on work capacity, with added limits beyond those opinions giving Plaintiff the benefit of the

Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bend

899 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2009

It also held that the transaction qualifies as a de facto merger or as a “mere continuation” of the previous corporate enterprise. … The Proxy Statement also establishes that there was a continuity of shareholders between Studebaker and S-W. (Appellees‟ Br. at 4.)

Kamal El-Adnani v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2012

court may abuse its discretion by: (1) failing to enter a sentencing statement; (2) entering a sentencing statement that is not supported by the record; (3) entering a sentencing statement that omits reasons that are clearly … Each of these injuries qualifies as serious bodily injury. Ind. Code § 35-41-1-25. The State was only required to prove two separate types of serious bodily injury to sustain the instant convictions.

Pennycuff v. State

745 N.E.2d 804 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2001

These references were sufficiently related to Pennycuff’s claim of cooperation to qualify as a rebuttal. … Long before the trial began it must have been obvious that the transcript was clearly in play and a subject of dispute.

MULRYAN v. RICS SOFTWARE, INC.

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

"Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant must identify a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for its employment decision. … This evidence need not be obvious to qualify as direct evidence.

MILLER v. MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 7, 2023

Miller's sex discrimination claim clearly does not arise out of conduct alleged in her EEOC Charge. At no point prior to her Response to the County's Motion for Summary Judgment does Ms. … Miller cannot establish causation. In order for her retaliation claim to succeed, Ms.

Alan R. Kohlhaas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hidden Valley Lake Property Owners Association, Inc., and Robert A. Will, William Acra, Carl Adkins

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2014

The Defendants also asserted that the Board’s actions were immunized by the Nonprofit Corporations Act, and summary judgment was warranted on Dr. Kohlhaas’s claims against those serving on the Board. … Kohlhaas asserts that “[w]hile the Articles clearly provide that the Board has the authority to alter or amend the Rules, those Articles also require that they must take official action to do so” and that “[s]imply agreeing

Johnson v. Wabash City of

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

To establish a § 1983 claim, he must show that he was “deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, by a person acting under color of law.” Thurman v. … As no constitutional claims remain against the officers, the court need not address qualified immunity. C.

JACKSON v. DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2020

This statement clearly connected the plaintiff’s termination to his political ambitions, so the retaliation claim survived summary judgment. Here, Mr. … To establish disability discrimination, Mr.

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. C.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 10, 2022

Upon careful consideration of the various policy provisions and the applicable case law, we find that American Family has met its burden to establish that the Sexual Molestation Exclusion unambiguously excludes coverage … For these reasons, we hold that the Sexual Molestation Exclusion clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for the negligence claim alleged against Ms.

Willie J. Bailey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2019

Evidence obtained without a warrant and in a circumstance that does not qualify as an exception to the warrant requirement is not admissible. Holloway, 69 N.E.3d at 930. … Bailey also argues the search warrant affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the Old Stone Address and suspected criminal activity.

PRICE v. PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2022

It is the defendant's burden to establish that the administrative process was available to the plaintiff. See Thomas v. … The Court notes that the Ramirez used the qualifier "arguably cured" and expressly stated that it "need not definitively resolve the issue." 142 S. Ct. at 1276.

Badanish v. Lake County Juvenile Detention Center

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 20, 2020

Because the Plaintiff has clearly pled that the State Defendants were her employers she had met her pleading obligations. … Specifically, the State Defendants argue that the Plaintiff is an appointee and Title VII’s definition of employee excludes “any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified

BEAVER, JR. v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 2022

Beaver has not established that his failure to obtain an affidavit or testimony from Mr. … Beaver after he returned from FMLA leave arose out of retaliatory motives, he has failed to establish that he was subjected to the type of intolerable working conditions the Seventh Circuit law has required to establish