Case law

Greer v. State

669 N.E.2d 751 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1996

In the absence of an objection, the State did not have the burden to affirmatively establish that Greer was informed of and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. … It is true that the supreme court held that a defendant serving home detention while awaiting trial is "imprisoned awaiting trial" and is therefore qualified for membership in Class I.

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

Saegesser Engineering, Inc. v. Terry Amick (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2018

Amick also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on the defamation claim based on absolute immunity, qualified immunity, lack of actual malice, and lack of defamatory imputation. … Finally, Saegesser also argued that Amick was not entitled to absolute immunity or qualified immunity and that there were genuine issues regarding the elements of the defamation claim.

Farley v. Hammond Sanitary District

956 N.E.2d 76 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2011

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. Id. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclusions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Id.

Riggin v. Bd. of Trust. of Ball State Univ.

489 N.E.2d 616 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1986

Clearly, it is a function of Ball State to employ and discharge professors. … The court's findings are clearly supported by the evidence.

Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City Of Gary, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2025

The City has failed to establish that the Reservation Statute is an unconstitutional special law. 7 In KS&E Sports, the Supreme Court observed: “One explanation [for the Immunity Statute] may be … The City failed to establish a separation of powers or open courts violation.

Simpson v. OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

939 N.E.2d 1098 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2010

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclu *1104 sions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

Town of Highland v. Zerkel

659 N.E.2d 1113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

[TThe court now finds that the Town of Highland is not immune for the conduct complained of insofar as it has not established that a policy oriented decision-making process as required by Peqvier was utilized in this case … Because the evidence clearly established that under Highland's sidewalk replacement program the cost of sidewalk maintenance was shared with the homeowner, we do not feel that the jury assigned 100% financial responsibility

James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch v. C. Joseph Yast

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to designate sufficient material to establish that Defendant abused his qualified privilege. … Moreover, Yast’s lack of ill will is clearly established by the host of witnesses who testified that Yast never said anything derogatory about Gagan or the other sellers.

Andrianova v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

799 N.E.2d 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

Those exceptions are enumerated in the Interim Guideline Regulations, and five of them are clearly inapplicable in this case. … In the latter case, the statute involved was one that Congress clearly intended to be construed liberally.

King v. Bartholomew County Hospital

476 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1985

Finally, I.C. 16-12.1-5.1 provides that all physicians possessing an unlimited license to practice medicine and surgery are eligible for membership on the medical staff, subject, however to the power of the board to establish … Such would be consistent with the qualified privilege granted in such cases.

Dickson v. Aaron

667 N.E.2d 759 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1996

We shall therefore treat the trial court's “qualified" statements as findings of fact on this issue. 2 . … In her cross-appeal, Aaron alleges that the court erred in finding that Dickson was entitled to qualified immunity.

City of Peru v. Lewis

950 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2011

State, 259 Ind. 55 , 284 N.E.2d 733 (1972), our Supreme Court, in concluding that “establishing categories of governmental immunity was best left to the legislature,” took the step to abrogate “the common law doctrine of … In particular, we held that the defendants’ “negligent performance of duty to extinguish [the] fire[ ] clearly [fell] within the ambit of failure to provide adequate protection.” Id. at 441 .

Jalen Lee, A Minor Child, by and through his Next Friend, Crystal Estes and Crystal Estes, Individually v. Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, City of Columbus

75 N.E.3d 518 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2017

It is well established that “the legislature intended that a government entity be immune only for failing to adopt or enforce a law that falls within the scope of its purpose or operational power.” Gary Cmty. Sch. … Such an act clearly is within and protected by the immunity granted by the [ITCA].” Id. at 1220 .

City of Hammond v. Reffitt

789 N.E.2d 998 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2003

from liability under the principles of common law immunity; and 3) Reffitt failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … Trial Rule 50(A) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provides: Where all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury or an advisory jury are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdiet thereon is clearly

Wolf v. Kajima International Inc.

621 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1993

Rogers is entitled to the immunity afforded by the Act. … The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held (1) a general contractor qualifies for statutory employer immunity under the LHWCA, and (2) a general contractor is entitled to immunity from tort actions where it

Hatchett v. State

740 N.E.2d 920 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2000

Privileges and Immunities Hatchett next asserts that the SVF statute violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution "because it … also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.'"

Buse v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District

953 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2011

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … Our supreme court disagreed that the landowners’ claims qualified as a public lawsuit.

Lippeatt v. Comet Coal & Clay Co., Inc.

419 N.E.2d 1332 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1981

Horton, (1956) 126 Ind.App. 651 , 133 N.E.2d 568 , it is also true that the habendum may lessen, enlarge, explain, or qualify a conveyance. Claridge v. Phelps, supra. … The trial court only construed the Lippeatt deed and the examination of the other deeds established that the defendant-appellees were proper parties to this lawsuit by demonstrating ownership of other veins.

Henshilwood v. Hendricks County

653 N.E.2d 1062 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1995

Use of the ditch to collect water was its intended use, and clearly foreseeable and known to the County. The County cannot claim immunity under this clause. … No. 17A03-9412-CR-443 (application of Mullin test established private duty owed by County as facts showed injured party relied on County’s promise to dispatch ambulance).