Case law

Greathouse v. Board of School Commissioners

198 Ind. 95 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1926

Under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution the state cannot deny to a citizen of the United States or deprive him of his national rights, privileges and immunities which belong to … The state must give to each citizen of the United States who is or becomes a bona fide citizen therein, the same rights, privileges and immunities secured by her Constitution.

Majors v. State

773 N.E.2d 231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2002

Only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances will this Court find an abuse of discretion.[2] Hall v. State, 760 N.E.2d 688, 689-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). … circumstances of that immunity.

City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloat

50 N.E.3d 135 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2016

The City asserted: (1) Beloat was unable to establish the cause of her injury; (2) the City was immune from liability pursuant to the ITCA’s discretionary function immunity … Whether the conduct involved establishment of plans, specifications and schedule; and f.

State Ex Rel. Davenport v. International Harvester Co.

216 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1940

Chapter 81, Acts of 1933 (§ 64-901 et seq., Burns’ 1933, § 15899 et seq., Baldwin’s 1934), commonly known as the Intangible Tax Act, is clearly a general excise tax measure. … This does not mean that the admitted corporation may enjoy any immunity from taxes, licenses, or regulations imposed on domestic corporations upon the same terms.

Newman v. State

263 Ind. 569 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1975

In the case before us it appears that the omission as to the immunity granted was inadvertent. … But the testimony of each witness clearly was intended to reinforce the testimony of the other. The credibility of one witness would have an effect on the strength of the testimony offered by the other.

In Re Direct Contempt of Caito

459 N.E.2d 1179 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1984

of reviewing direct contempt proceedings requires this Court to accept as true the statement entered of record by the lower court of the matter constituting the contempt, and to interfere with the judgment only where it clearly … establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence."

Ledbetter v. Hunter

842 N.E.2d 810 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2006

Nevertheless, Collins clearly emphasized our anticipation that "our independent state privileges and immunities jurisprudence will evolve in future cases facing Indiana courts to as- sure and extend protection to all Indiana … The presumption of constitutionality continues unless "clearly overcome" by a con- trary showing.

Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndobler

979 N.E.2d 144 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2012

tort im- munity on government actors where both a government actor and a non-governmental third party contribute to a loss because the "general pattern" of the statute indicates that the legislature only intended to grant immunity … Not only does the statute establish preconditions for an award of pre- judgment interest, Ind.

Blue v. State Ex Rel. Brown

206 Ind. 98 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1934

Stat. 1934, and she further alleges that unless an appropriation is made and the qualified voters duly registered under and pursuant to the terms of said law, she and all other qualified voters of said county will be disfranchised … Brummit , *103 supra, decided that one who obtains a decree enjoining the construction of a drain established under an order alleged to be void for want of jurisdiction, is estopped to assert in another suit that the board

Turpin v. State

272 Ind. 629 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1980

In the instant case, the destruction of the exculpatory statement did not preclude defendant from showing its materiality, since the fact that he made such a statement and its approximate contents were clearly brought out … The presence of the gun in the room was relevant to establishing the threat of force. There was no error in the admission of this evidence.

Bolivar Twp. Bd. of Fin. of Benton Co. v. Hawkins

207 Ind. 171 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1934

And, as in all other cases involving the validity of statutes, all reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of upholding the validity of legislation establishing a classification. 12 C. J. 1129-1130. … Municipal corporations are mere instrumentalities of the State, for the convenient administration of government; and their powers may be qualified, enlarged or withdrawn at the pleasure of the legislature.”

JAW v. State

687 N.E.2d 1202 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1997

A court should (1) establish a presumption as to a public entity's status, (2) balance five general "[i]ndicators of immunity," 513 U.S. at 44 , 115 S.Ct. at 402 , and, if these indicators point *1206 in different directions … indicators of immunity to see if they consistently support or contradict the presumptive immunity status.

STATE EX REL. INDIANA ST. BAR ASSOC. v. Moritz

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

The relator is not immune from these well established rules of practice. … The term Prosecuting Attorney in the context of its setting provides only the authority for the establishment of that office.

In re Leach

21 L.R.A. 701 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1893

The special finding of the court discloses, that the petitioner, a citizen of this State, is a woman over the age of twenty-one years, and of good moral character; that she possesses sufficient knowledge of the law to qualify … S. 1881, section 962), and providing a procedure in establishing the right of such persons to be admitted to practice.

Hartman v. State

669 N.E.2d 959 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

These witnesses did not have transactional immunity from prosecution for their acts in these crimes. Appellant's instruction advises the jury that the witnesses did obtain such immunity. … The purpose of an instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury, and to enable the jury to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict.

City of Fort Wayne v. Coombs

107 Ind. 75 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1886

It is, indeed, doubtful Avhether a municipal corporation can stipulate for immunity from the consequences of a breach of duty; but, hoAvever this may be, it is quite clear that where there is, as here, no such stipulation … There can be no doubt, therefore, that he was qualified to testify as an expert.

Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, City of Indianapolis, Department of Waterworks, and City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Company and FCCI Insurance Company a/s/o Ultra Steak, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2014

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the Act. Id. at 800. … But as it stands, the City cannot establish that it is entitled to statutory immunity for a discretionary function under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(7). II.

City of Indianapolis v. Sturdevant

24 Ind. 391 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1865

It would be difficult to employ language which would more clearly cover the case before us. … By the term “institution” is understood a permanent establishment, as contradistinguished from an enterprise of a temporary character.

In Re Evrard

263 Ind. 423 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1974

In summation, we must clearly delineate the authority, responsibilities and duties implicit in sections 4, 7 and 13 of Article 7. … Rabb to qualify and to set a date for hearing as soon as possible after January 1,1975.

State v. Williams

211 Ind. 186 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1937

They are clearly distinct. The nature and cause of a criminal prosecution is sufficiently averred by charging the crime alleged to have been committed. This must be done. … The purpose of the dental statute is to prevent anyone from practicing dentistry who is not duly licensed and qualified, and anyone who is not so qualified can neither directly nor indirectly practice dentistry.