Case law

Cantrell v. Morris

849 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Kellogg also quoted the standard for qualified immunity as stated by the U.S. … Supreme Court: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Matter of Public Law No. 154-1990

561 N.E.2d 791 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1990

The immunity provisions of the Attorney Trust Account Act clearly and literally attempt to exercise by limitation the attorney disciplinary function of the judicial department. … Apart from the attorney discipline immunity provisions, the Attorney Trust Account Act establishes a fund to receive proceeds from interest generated from attorney trust accounts and a board to establish procedures and oversee

Kellogg v. City of Gary

562 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

qualified immunity defense depends upon the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to *704 clearly established law." … qualified immunity.

Foster v. Pearcy

270 Ind. 533 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1979

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Pearcy as Prosecuting Attorney enjoyed only a qualified immunity for statements made to the press by him and his deputy Leroy New. Foster v. … He argues that the prosecutor, as a member of the executive branch, cannot claim the immunity reserved for the judiciary, but only a qualified immunity akin to that accorded other executive officials in this Court’s previous

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville

2 N.E.3d 1269 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2014

Thus, the two distinguishing characteristics upon which the Amending Ordinance establishes different classes for unequal treatment are: (1) whether the establishment is floating or land-based and (2) whether the establishment … The Evansville City Council clearly distinguished riverboat casinos from land-based bars and clubs, and we do not fault these classifications.

City of New Haven v. Reichhart

748 N.E.2d 374 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

Yet the opinion takes care to establish that Reichhart’s claim was “legitimate”[5] and makes it clear that she was entitled to immunity from the malicious prosecution action because she had both “standing and grounds … Instead, we think it is clear that the court found a limited immunity from malicious prosecution actions for qualified citizens who bring legitimate taxpayer challenges against a governmental entity in compliance

Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Department

868 N.E.2d 425 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2007

In any event, more recent law established through the Indiana Tort Claims Act recognizes that state and local governments may have tort responsibility for damages flowing from negligence, but grants immunity for that negligence … Immunity under the act is a question of law to be determined by the court. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.2001). The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing it. Id.

Cory v. Carter

48 Ind. 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

This the constitution and subsequent recognized and decided constitutional legislation clearly establish. Acts June 18th, 1852, 1 G. & H. 443; Hatwood v. The State, 18 Ind. 492 ; Barkshire v. The State, 7 Ind. 389 . … At all events, the legislative action is conclusive, unless it clearly infringes the provisions of the constitution.

State ex rel. Walker v. Green

112 Ind. 462 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1887

Now the Legislature saAv fit, in establishing this test, to except from its provisions a certain class of physicians and surgeons; in so doing it in effect declared — to state the extreme case— that the physician or surgeon … But counsel clearly err, we think, in claiming that the-right acquired by the licensee, under such a license, is, in the proper or legal sense of the word, a franchise.

Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

84 N.E.3d 1185 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2017

Pulaski, in contrast, addressed a procedural question—what statutory language must the legislature employ to establish its intention to waive immunity? … But to overcome sovereign immunity, it must “clearly evince” its intention to do so.

Row v. Holt

864 N.E.2d 1011 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2007

All defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting probable cause for Row’s arrest and qualified immunity. … This is sometimes expressed as a good faith defense 6 or qualified immunity. 7 Civil liability for common law false arrest is a matter of state 6 See e.g., United States v.

Brosamer v. Mark

561 N.E.2d 767 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1990

Pension plans qualified under ERISA receive preferential federal tax treatment, and the relevant portion of the Internal Revenue Code echoes ERISA by providing: "A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under this section … Although this passage is clearly dicta, it is consistent with the decision in Tenneco and with ERISA's legislative history.

Benton v. City of Oakland City

721 N.E.2d 224 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1999

First, the cases do not clearly define concepts referred to as a governmental unit’s “public duty” and its “private duty.” … And we continue to believe that the City of Rome test is appropriate for determining whether a governmental unit qualifies for immunity for failure to dispatch emergency services (but only for that purpose).

Sarlls, City Clerk v. State, Ex Rel.

201 Ind. 88 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1929

Following the inundation of Galveston, Texas, by a tidal wave in 1900, a commission plan of government was established there to speed up the work of rehabilitation. … A “Home-Rule Amendment” to the Colorado Constitution was adopted in 1912, under which the commission-form of government was established in cities. See People v. Prevost (1913), 55 Colo. 199 , 134 Pac. 129 . 6 Brown v.

Sturrup v. Mahan

261 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1974

The State has failed to establish a compelling State interest and the bylaws’ necessary relation to the furtherance of that interest. … The Shapiro and Dunn cases can clearly be distinguished from the case at bar.

Ice v. STATE EX REL. INDIANA STATE BOARD, ETC.

240 Ind. 82 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1959

"It is established law that an act of the Legislature can not be annulled by the judiciary in any respect unless it clearly contravenes some provision of the Constitution. … Further appellant contends that he has been discriminated against in that he has not been extended the same privileges and immunities as other classes of citizens, such as dentists or medical technicians, contrary to Art.

Ice v. State ex rel. Indiana State Board of Dental Examiners

240 Ind. 82 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1959

“It is established law that an act of the Legislature can not be annulled by the judiciary in any /respect unless it clearly contravenes some provision of the Constitution. … No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Board of Com'rs v. Kokomo City Plan Com'n

263 Ind. 282 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975

It established also that the County had enacted a master plan. … The State's Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. 1, § 23, refers only to "citizens."

Board of Commissioners v. Kokomo City Plan Commission

263 Ind. 282 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1976

Such rules are intended to insure that the courts will nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary. … It established also that the County had enacted a master plan.

Campbell v. State

259 Ind. 55 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1972

Exactly what constitutes a proprietary function as opposed to a governmental function has never been clearly enunciated by the courts, and this failure to establish a criteria has led to the generally confused state of the … Exactly what a governmental function constituted was not yet clearly defined.