Case law

KS&E Sports and Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels

72 N.E.3d 892 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2017

And “it is well established that the allegations of a complaint cannot be changed or expanded by the prayer for relief.” Jerry Alderman Ford Sales, Inc, v. … Because we cannot say Congress clearly and manifestly intended the PLCAA to preempt state law, we find no preemption here. B. Runnels’s constitutional arguments are without merit.

Haas v. South Bend Community School Corporation

259 Ind. 515 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1972

Similarly, does the above-mentioned rule violate Art. 1, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution which provides that the “General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon … Such was clearly not the case. In fact, the member school, Shields High School of Seymour, Indiana, was defending against the plaintiff’s action rather than challenging the validity of the association’s rule.

INDIANAPOLIS HORSE PATROL, INC., a CORP. v. Ward

247 Ind. 519 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1966

However, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and plaintiff may overcome this by proof of actual or express malice...." In 33 Am. Jur. … The question to be ascertained here is not whether certain evidence was admissible, but whether certain evidence established a situation which would create a legal immunity.

City of Crown Point v. Lake County

510 N.E.2d 684 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1987

County Immunity from Zoning Code Aside from its claim under the Home Rule Act, the County argues that its statutory authority to establish Community Correctional Centers prevails over the statutory authority of the City to … The superior sovereign test presents the difficulty of attempting to establish a meaningful hierarchical ranking. Note, Governmental Immunity from Zoning, 22 B.C.L.Rev. 783, 790 (1981).

Barnes v. Barnes

603 N.E.2d 1337 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1992

in this case, would not be sufficient, in our opinion to qualify. … The defendant's motion did not assert the Rape Shield Statute, but rather cited as authority the rule that one crime cannot be proved in order to establish the commission of another distinct crime because such evidence is

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2026

code section 34-13-3-5, which generally bars an action against an employee unless the alleged tortious conduct falls “clearly outside the scope of the employee’s employment.” … Immunity Under Code Section 34-13-3-5 The ITCA establishes “certain parameters to determine liability for negligent acts or omissions on the part of government employees” and grants “substantial immunity” for conduct

Indianapolis Horse Patrol, Inc. v. Ward

247 Ind. 519 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1966

However, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and plaintiff may overcome this by proof of actual or express malice. . . .” In 33 Am. Jur. … The question to be ascertained here is not whether certain evidence was admissible, but whether certain evidence established a situation which would create a legal immunity.

Conrad v. State

273 Ind. 587 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1980

She testified against the defendant under a grant of prosecutorial immunity. … “In post conviction proceedings, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Post Conviction Remedy Rule 1, § 5.

Sears v. Board of Commissioners

36 Ind. 267 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1871

The remark of Chief Justice Marshall that is relied upon to sustain that view has been recently examined, explained, and qualified by the Supreme Court, in Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wal. 123. … The only allusion to imposts in the articles of confederation is clearly limited to duties- on goods imported from foreign states.

Fager v. Hundt

610 N.E.2d 246 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1993

Bruen (1990), 106 Nev. 271 , 792 P.2d 18 ("where the fact of abuse is clearly and convineingly corroborated"); Jones v. … The plaintiff submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers of perception and recollection

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. and Louise Liford d/b/a Thirsty Turtle v. City of Indianapolis, Mayor Greg Ballard, Indianapolis City-Council, and Hoosier Park, LLC

51 N.E.3d 195 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2016

"Whether a statute or ordinance is constitutional on its face is a question of law and we review the matter de novo," though it "stands before this Court clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome … Paul Stieler also holds that because certain factors were "not embodied" in its challenged ordinance "as prerequisites," they were "clearly not inherent distinguishing characteristics" and were not reasonably related to the

Adams v. State

259 Ind. 64 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1971

We applied a qualified rule in 1924, (St. Vincent’s Hospital v. Stine, 195 Ind. 350 , 114 N. E. 537 ), followed through in 1963 (Richardson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 135 Ind. App. 1 , 191 N. … On those occasions, we exercised the authority that is clearly ours and fulfilled the responsibilities that we cannot deny. Our position in the case before us is the same.

State v. Gibson

36 Ind. 389 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1871

We have said that one of the reserved powers'was that to establish a judicial department. … The natural l^w which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures.

State of Indiana v. I.T.

4 N.E.3d 1139 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2014

The Statute’s terms clearly confer use immunity, but do not necessarily extend to derivative use immunity. We begin with the language of the Statute to determine the scope of its protections. … Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investi- gation to develop similar evidence from other

State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. Moritz

244 Ind. 156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1963

The relator is not immune from these well established rules of practice. … The designation may further indicate the nature and character of the office, but it clearly was not meant to nor does it define the qualifications of that office.

King Ex Rel. King v. Northeast Security, Inc.

790 N.E.2d 474 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2003

“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act.” Mullin, 639 N.E.2d at 281. 1. … App. 1981) (“Insomuch as this action was undertaken by the Department pursuant to a duty entrusted to it by statute, it qualifies for immunity under [subsections (5), (6), or (7)].”).

Witte v. Mundy Ex Rel. Mundy

820 N.E.2d 128 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2005

This reasoning applies to parent-child immunity just as it does to workers’ compensation. … The defendants do not claim that Officer McCarty qualified as an expert.

Arnold v. State

460 N.E.2d 494 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1984

It has been clearly established in Indiana that a police officer may arrest an individual without a warrant when the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony. … Rather, the evidence clearly established that defendant and his accomplice entered Murray's apartment by force, bound and gagged the occupants and demanded and obtained money and jewelry.

Walker v. State

267 Ind. 649 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1978

In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Lockhart v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 349 , 274 N.E.2d 523 . … When the prosecuting attorney discovered these promises he corrected the situation by clearly telling the witness that no immunity was being offered her. This was five months prior to her testimony.

Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals v. Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC

938 N.E.2d 654 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2010

Standard of Review The Indiana Tax Court was established to develop and apply specialized expertise in the prompt, fair, and uniform resolution of state tax cases. Miller Brewing Co. v. Ind. … Rather, the statute allows a charitable purposes exemption to any entity which otherwise qualifies. Id.