# Quakenbush v. Lackey

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 25, 1993 · 622 N.E.2d 1284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717431

## Case

- **Full name:** Tricia B. QUAKENBUSH, Appellant, (Plaintiff Below) v. Florence E. LACKEY and City of Indianapolis, Appellees. (Defendants Below); Samuel McAFFEE, Appellant, (Plaintiff Below) v. Florence E. LACKEY, and City of Indianapolis, Appellees. (Defendants Below); Mac MEDLIN and Larry Allen, Appellants, (Plaintiffs Below) v. Florence E. LACKEY, Indianapolis Police Department, and City of Indianapolis, Appellees. (Defendants Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 25, 1993
- **Citations:** 622 N.E.2d 1284; 1993 Ind. LEXIS 191; 1993 WL 435913
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Givan
- **Judges:** Krahulik, Debruler, Dickson, Givan, Shepard
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717431

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that scope of "adoption or enforcement of a law" in Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(8) "is not limited to traditional law enforcement activities such as the arrest or pursuit of suspects by police"
- reasoning that the Court will strive to harmonize two statutes addressing the same subject matter

## Opinion text

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I disagree with the observation of the majority that the case of Seymour Nat’l. Bank v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1223 , placed an improper interpretation upon the law enforcement section of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3(7). As stated in Seymour, the language of the statute is clear. Whether the members of this Court disagree with that language, is beside the point. It is improper for this Court to rewrite the statute and to attribute meaning to that statute which is clearly not there.
The opinion in the majority is an excellent argument to be used in the legislature to bring about a change in the language of the statute in order that law enforcement officers might be responsible for the acts described by the majority opinion. Seymour was decided correctly and followed the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.
I would deny transfer in this case.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717431. Public record. Not legal advice.