Case law

City of New Haven v. Reichhart

729 N.E.2d 600 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2000

Attackable “wastage” in the sense hereinabove used would also occur where the annexation was clearly or patently illegal. … There, the Court ruled that petitioners enjoy only a qualified immunity under the right of petition where they express "libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials.”

City of South Bend v. Dollahan

918 N.E.2d 343 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2009

The trial court's findings will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, ie. when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. Id. … Under Indiana's common law, Dollahan was required to establish three elements to recover on a theory of negli-genee: (1) a duty on the part of City to conform its conduct to a standard of care arising from its relationship

Smith v. State

152 Ind. App. 654 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1972

The record is devoid of any evidence that defendant was áttemptihg to gain immunity or hoping to “make a deal” as he now contends. … Based upon our discussion of the other issues herein, we are convinced that defendant’s conviction was clearly established. Affirmed. White, P.J. and Buchanan, J., concur. Note. — Reported in 284 N. E. 2d 522 .

Bertram A. Graves, M.D. v. Indiana University Health, f/k/a Clarian Health Partners, Inc., Richard Kovacs, M.D., and Edward Ross, M.D.

32 N.E.3d 1196 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2015

Specifically, the trial court determined that the Appellees were protected by peer-review immunity, Dr. Graves had not established discrimination, and the claims against Drs. … Graves has failed to establish that the trial court’s decision in this regard is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1412-PL-560

City of Carmel v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

849 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2006

Economic injury would clearly accompany such a forced cessation of operations. … This would clearly be an absurd result because governance of these areas is not limited to local zoning bodies.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana

987 N.E.2d 121 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2013

Dugan, 929 N.E.2d at 189 (“The designated evidence here clearly establishes that Komorowski’s statements were based on an accumulation of several years of careful personal observations and gathering of information from … Clearly, identical injuries may have radically different effects on different plaintiffs.

Cody Waldrip v. Angela Waldrip, City of Bloomington, Indiana, Monroe County, Indiana, State of Indiana

976 N.E.2d 102 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012

However, on those counts the complaint clearly refers to “the Defendants” jointly. … Even if the complaint clearly alleged that Angela was acting for her own benefit in abusing her position to obtain the protective order, thus negating immunity under Indiana Code Section 35-13-3-5(c)(5), we still must

Milan Jurich, Personal Representative of the Estate of Rade Jurich, and Rajna Jurich v. Indiana Department of Transportation

126 N.E.3d 846 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2019

In determining what acts qualify for discretionary function immunity under the ITCA, our Supreme Court has adopted the planning- operational test. Peavler v. … The party seeking immunity has the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the provisions of the ITCA. Id.

Indiana Board of Pharmacy v. Paul J Elmer

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

[11] Like judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity is absolute. Melton, 156 N.E.3d at 652–53. … Elmer has failed to establish that the Board members acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction. B.

Carol Fluhr v. Anonymous Doctor 1

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 2024

[10] Thus, our analysis proceeds by determining whether Defendants can establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that they are immune from civil Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion … Thus, we have no difficulty in finding Defendants qualify for immunity here. See Mills v.

Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.

754 N.E.2d 958 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2001

Because the designated evidence does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of the detention, we cannot determine whether the Shoplifting Detention Act renders Finlay and Ayres immune for false imprisonment. … Finlay and Ayres also seek immunity under a qualified privilege of common interest, which protects "communications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in

Board of County Commissioners v. Arick

477 N.E.2d 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1985

In addition, they testified that water could cause the problem, and other testimony established that it had been raining that day. … Immunity from liability.

Gaines v. Taylor

96 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1933

We think and hold that the part of said instruction, of which appellant complains, and which we have italicized in this opinion, is qualified by the balance of said instruction, and other instructions given by the court, … We hold that the instructions given in this case when considered as a whole did fairly and clearly present the law applicable thereto.

Worthington v. State

181 Ind. App. 365 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1979

Unless the court finds that the issuance of the order would be clearly contrary to public interest, the witness shall comply with the order of the court. … However, it was established by the United States Supreme Court in Kastigar v.

Hummer v. School City of Hartford City

124 Ind. App. 30 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1953

The rule is well established that governmental immunity may be abrogated or modified by legislative enactment unless prohibited by the Constitution, 160 ALR 85 , and that the Legislature may establish circumstances under … This immunity is a fundamental and long established rule of our common law. Freel v. The School City of Crawfordsville, supra.

Sisters of Mercy Health Corp. v. First Bank of Whiting

624 N.E.2d 520 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1993

There is some evidence of an effort to qualify Clarice for Medicaid benefits at this time. This effort included the decision by First Bank to cease income distributions to Clarice in 1982. … Clearly, an ordinary creditor of a beneficiary suffers no legal injury as the result of a trustee complying with the spendthrift provisions of the trust.

Borne Ex Rel. Borne v. Northwest Allen County School Corp.

532 N.E.2d 1196 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1989

The school corporation contends that its failure to raise the governmental immunity defense in its answer did not prejudice the Bornes because it clearly raised this defense in its motion for summary judgment, thereby affording … Therefore, "[the governmental entity seeking to establish immunity bears the burden of proving that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. Little v.

Bartholomew County v. Johnson

995 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2013

Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law,[ 2 ] we construe it narrowly against the grant of immunity. The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act. … Likewise, when a governmental entity is otherwise liable as a joint tortfeasor, no governmental immunity is clearly extended on grounds that the other joint tortfeasor engaged in “the performance of a discretionary function

Crafton v. State

450 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1983

After a short recess, Sells stated, "Judge, I want to qualify that immunity a little bit. I want to make it in accordance with the statute. I don't think I'm authorized to grant any immunity in excess of the statute." … EPPERLY'S PATTERSON STATEMENT Debbie Epperly was called as a witness by the State, and after some preliminary questions establishing that she had been arrested for Barker's robbery and was granted immunity in exchange for

Hamed v. Pfeifer

647 N.E.2d 669 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1995

The federal court's ruling clearly permitted Pfeifer to use the tape recording at trial in an attempt to prove General Accident's defense, albeit unsuccessful, of fraud. … Gastineau (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 1020 , 1024 trans. denied (qualified privilege); Boydston v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 318, 321 (same).