Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersindctapp

4,284 results

0.58s

  • 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.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Lomont v. State

    852 N.E.2d 1002 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2006

    The court ordered that Lomont could serve his one-year sentence in the Steuben County Work Release Program, if he qualified for the program, and placed Lomont on probation for two years. I. … In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we employ the two-part test established by the Indiana Supreme Court in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994). Minton v.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Jacobs v. City of Columbus ex rel. Police Department

    454 N.E.2d 1253 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1983

    Other than the dicta in Seymour, we have found no case which qualifies the immunity granted in Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-8. The immunity in issue is a residue of the sovereign immunities enunciated in pre-Campbell cases. … conduct might otherwise be clearly established."

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • David Pflugh v. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission sitting as the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission and as the Board of Zoning Appeals Division of Marion County, Indiana

    108 N.E.3d 904 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2018

    [13] The trial court found that Pflugh failed to establish that he was particularly harmed, and it is well-settled that we will not set aside a trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous … Pflugh does not claim, much less establish, that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Savieo v. City of New Haven

    824 N.E.2d 1272 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005

    Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law, we construe it narrowly against the grant of immunity. The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. … In Campbell, this Court reflected on the *1277 difficulties in distinguishing between "governmental functions" and "proprietary functions" and concluded that establishing categories of governmental immunity was best left

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Van De Leuv v. Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Inc.

    642 N.E.2d 531 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1994

    The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that qualified privilege has been abused. Id. … Alternatively, Methodist and EMGI argue that they are immune from van de Leuy's defamation claim pursuant to Indiana Code 34-4-12.6-3(b) (the "Peer Review Act").

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Osco Drug, Inc.

    431 N.E.2d 823 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1982

    If these permittees do not meet this requirement, they do not qualify to hold their new permit. … This raises a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was made only to express the original intention of the legislature more clearly. Daubenspeck v.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Rhiver v. Rietman

    148 Ind. App. 266 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1970

    Immunity is a central consideration to this noble goal. … We think the examining physician’s privilege from civil liability may be qualified where malpractice is demonstrated.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Horn v. Hendrickson

    824 N.E.2d 690 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2005

    Instead, given that Britt was established law in 1987 when the statute was amended, if the legislature had intended to exclude viable unborn children from the definition of "child," it would have clearly expressed its intention … [ ] in situation" for purposes of the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

    Cited 36 timesPublished
  • Buffalo v. Buffalo

    441 N.E.2d 711 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1982

    Instead, a new family unit had been established which consisted of plaintiff and her mother. … Clearly, mother can bring suit against father for the recovery of medical expenses and loss of her child’s services.

    Criticized by Ascuitto v. Farricielli, 244 Conn. 692 (1998)Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Donald Snemis, Commissioner of the Ind. BMV and Melvin Wilhelm, Prosecuting Atty. v. Joseph P. Mills

    Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2014

    has been prejudiced by an agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … We will affirm unless the agency’s conclusions are clearly erroneous. Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Wilson v. Isaacs

    917 N.E.2d 1251 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2009

    We therefore conclude that the undisputed evidence established that Deputy Craven was acting within the scope of his employment. … Notwithstanding their argument to the contrary, we conclude that the evidence established that Deputy Craven was acting within the seope of his employment when the conduct occurred.

    Vacated in part by Wilson v. Isaacs, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 406 (2010)Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Mann v. Johnson Memorial Hospital

    611 N.E.2d 676 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1993

    The Indiana peer review statute clearly entitles the charged health care provider to an evidentiary hearing before the medical staff,. … Medtronic (1992), Ind.App., 594 N.E.2d 448 ("Quality Assurance Council" which reviewed incident reports qualified as personnel of a peer review committee).

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Nikou v. INB National Bank

    638 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1994

    Qualified immunity for sources of information, such as INB, is the "guid pro quo" for full disclosure. 705 F.Supp. at 70 . … INB designated evidence to the trial court which negated Nikou's claim asserted in Count II of his complaint by establishing that, as a matter of law, it was protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for providing

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Brian L. Boyland, Jennifer K. Boyland v. Kenneth Hedge (mem. dec.)

    58 N.E.3d 928 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2016

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

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Krueger v. Bailey

    76 Ind. Dec. 821 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1980

    On the basis of certain portions of this deposition, the Kruegers claim that Herald was, clearly, a participant in a game of frisbee. … Before a statute will be declared repugnant to the Constitutions its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent. ...

    Cited 35 timesPublished
  • Dubois County Bank v. City of Vincennes

    517 N.E.2d 805 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1988

    Both the act and the manual clearly make the decision to erect traffic signs, including warning signs, discretionary. … The manual and the IND.CODE establish only two instances wherein parking is prohibited for a minimum of 20 feet. In pertinent part, IND.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Monarch Beverage Company, Inc. v. David Cook, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission

    48 N.E.3d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2015

    Our methodology for interpreting and applying provisions of the Indiana Constitution is well established. … The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the high burden of overcoming this presumption and establishing a constitutional violation, and any doubts are resolved in favor

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Jacobs v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, ETC.

    454 N.E.2d 1253 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1983

    Other than the dicta in Seymour, we have found no case which qualifies the immunity granted in Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-3. The immunity in issue is a residue of the sovereign immunities enunciated in pre- Campbell cases. … conduct might otherwise be clearly established."

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Clinton County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners v. Clements

    945 N.E.2d 721 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2011

    Clements’ purported statement that it would cost Clinton County an amount in excess of $200,000 to continue using the Mana-tron software is clearly one of opinion or prediction. … An “[ajbuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s action is clearly erroneous, that is, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.”

    Cited 1 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.