Case law

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

951 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2011

As our supreme court observed many years ago, the General Assembly and others in State government essentially are entrusted with establishing broad guidelines for the establishment of a tuition-free, “general and uniform” … This provision clearly does not by itself give rise to a cause of action of any kind against a school corporation or its governing body.

Cooley v. Hosier

659 N.E.2d 1127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1996

Once the movant establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts indicating that there is a genuine issue in dispute. … Vaughan then observed that "the [Smith ] court does continue that under extreme circumstances the immunity may not exist, however, a failure to supervise, as in this case, would not be sufficient, in our opinion to qualify

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.

Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Avant

650 N.E.2d 1164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1995

Not only did he fail to qualify for fall eligibility under the IHSAA rules, Avant also failed to establish that application of the Transfer Rule to him constituted an undue hardship. … Whether judicial review of the actions of a private voluntary association is proper without first establishing a civil or property right. B.

Eric McGowen and Vision Logistics, Inc. v. Bradley Montes

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

The General Assembly clearly knew how to specify medical care, including specific medical treatments, in the GSL. … ” [27] Next, Montes argues the scene of the vehicle collision did not qualify as an “objective emergency.” Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Br. p. 13.

Hanninen v. Koch

868 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

She has not established that the QSO statute violates Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. B. … The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified settlement

D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 2012

All of the actions complained of by the Family were only indirectly, at best, related to any court order or instruction, and were not sufficiently intertwined with the judicial process to qualify for quasi-judicial immunity … To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and that the injury is a result of the defendant’s conduct. Id. at 339-40.

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Stearns v. Zulka

489 N.E.2d 146 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1986

That is, are the photographs sought by Zulka clearly material and relevant to the defense of the underlying action; is there a compelling need for them in the sense that they are critical to the fair determination of the … Newspapers, television and radio stations-Press Associations-Employees and representatives-Immunity.

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Trosky

918 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2009

Under the ASIC policy, Culpepper and Trosky qualified as insureds because they were occupants 'of a vehicle owned by the Browns at the time of the accident. … Those cases adopt a broader definition of the policy language, holding that "legally entitled to recover" means only that the insured establish fault on the part of the uninsured or underinsured motorist, and establish the

McKenna v. City of Fort Wayne

429 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1981

State, (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 286 , 95 Cal.Rptr. 665 , establishing a test for immunity under the statute where part (but not all) of a public park has been improved. … Consequently, we hold the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity because the City, at best, established only one-half of the necessary factual predicate — “natural condition of unimproved

Stout v. Tippecanoe County Department of Public Welfare

182 Ind. App. 404 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1979

The party seeking summary judgment must establish the absence of a material factual dispute. … Thus, Stouts’ failure to establish that consent entitled the Department to a judgment as a matter of law. I.

Maroon v. State, Department of Mental Health

78 Ind. Dec. 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1980

Is the State of Indiana immune from liability under Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-3(9)? … Except as provided by its legislature, Illinois endéd its sovereign immunity by constitutional amendment in 1972, Illinois Constitution, Article 13, Section 4, and established the Illinois Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction

INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COM'N v. Kidd & Co., Inc.

505 N.E.2d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1987

Instead, Kidd laid her off, saying she was not qualified to drive solo. … Finding No. 17 reads, in part, as follows: Clearly, the majority of the mileage driven is highway mileage and most of that on freeways with at least four (4) lanes.

Wright v. Mount Auburn Daycare/Preschool

831 N.E.2d 158 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2005

The Court concludes that the findings would be opinions subject to immunity. This is not to say that the findings enjoy unqualified immunity. As already recognized in Hutchinson v. … A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireamstances before it. Id. at 470-71 .

Lohmiller v. State

884 N.E.2d 903 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2008

record, one CHIRP agreement, 3 one tuberculosis test record, and one tetanus immunization record. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before it.

M.C. v. Marion County Department of Child Services

905 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2009

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. … Mother further contends that the juvenile court erred by ordering her to establish paternity because paternity had already been established in August 2007.

Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital

928 N.E.2d 634 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2010

We do not believe, however, that we ought to create broad immunity for certain types of defendants in a certain class of cases, where our legislature has already clearly spoken on the precise issue and provided for a more … The Defendants have not established that they are entitled to immunity as a matter of law under Section 9-30-6-6 against any civil claims Elliott might bring.

Town of Chandler v. Indiana-American Water Co.

892 N.E.2d 1264 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2008

Section 14 provides that a municipality “may regulate the furnishing of water to the public” and may “establish, maintain, and operate waterworks.” … In this second motion to dismiss, Chandler argued that H.E.A. 1722 amended Indiana Code section 8-1-2-86.5 to clearly remove Chandler from the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Fair Share Organization, Inc. v. Mitnick

134 Ind. App. 675 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1963

They followed the policy established in James v. … The cases in this state clearly indicate that an injunction is proper, in spite of the Anti-Injunction Statute, when picketing is carried on .for an illegal purpose.

Seymour National Bank v. State

384 N.E.2d 1177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1979

Thus, if the plaintiff could establish that the officer was engaged in a ministerial function, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover on the basis of respondeat superior since the officer was not protected by immunity … The amendments, supra note 7, clearly disclose that the legislature was concerned with the end result of enforcement upon the object thereof. 12 .