Case law

Richard Kelly v. Anthony Sommer

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2025

[12] Here, the Kellys argue that neither type of immunity has been established at this stage. … Upon further factual development, Sommer may be able to establish as a matter of law that he is entitled to absolute immunity using a “function-based analysis,” and our case law instructs that qualified

Hendricks County, Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green

120 N.E.3d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Assembly’s intention to waive sovereign immunity. … As such, a statute must contain “an affirmative ‘expression’ or ‘declaration’ of the legislature’s intention to waive the State’s immunity” and requires that there is a “waiver of sovereign immunity

Reed v. City of Evansville

956 N.E.2d 684 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2011

Our supreme court has provided a helpful list of scenarios that illustrate when a political subdivision cannot claim immunity: [GJovemmental immunity is not clearly conferred to shield a government-employed lifeguard, otherwise … 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

Person v. State

661 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1996

Pursuant to I.C. 35 — 47—2—3(f)(2) (1995 Supp.) a person must be eighteen or older to qualify for a license to carry a handgun. … But, a problem arises because a child who commits dangerous possession of a handgun also implicitly commits carrying a handgun without a license, because clearly the child would not qualify for the issuance of a license.

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

592 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1992

We do not perceive the scope of work product immunity to be as extensive as the State envisions. … Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not entitled to the qualified immunity provided by this section.

Miller v. Griesel

297 N.E.2d 463 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1973

Griesel was not qualified as an expert witness. … The record clearly demonstrates that the trial court did not consider Dale H.

State, Dept. of Nat. Resources v. Taylor

419 N.E.2d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1981

Therefore, the Department is clearly a state agency within the purview of the Tort Claims Act, and with this conclusion the Taylors do not disagree. … Insomuch as this action was undertaken by the Department pursuant to a duty entrusted to it by statute, it qualifies for immunity under Ind.

Buckley v. Standard Investment Co.

536 N.E.2d 311 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1989

Clearly, Citizens qualifies as a political subdivision under subsection (iii) or (x) of the definition quoted above. … In order to qualify for the immunity extended under IND.CODE 34-4-16.5-3(11), however, a governmental entity must satisfy several other requirements.

Metal Working Lubricants Co. v. Indianapolis Water Co.

746 N.E.2d 352 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

IWC as a Governmental Entity The first question which must be answered in determining whether IWC is entitled to immunity is whether or not it qualifies as a "governmental entity." … Water is clearly an essential element of fire protection, and therefore the provision of water for use in fire protection services is also immune.

Board Of Trustees Of Purdue University, d/b/a Purdue University and Purdue Calumet Thomas Keon v. Dr. Maurice Eisenstein

87 N.E.3d 481 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2017

This claim clearly has nothing to do with the other professors. … immunity.

City of Crown Point v. Rutherford

640 N.E.2d 750 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1994

We had to send a form out to the people asking ... their income in between certain categories to see if they qualified for low to moderate income and those who did not qualify where the sidewalks needed replacement we gave … Therefore we decline to second-guess this decision which clearly involves the exercise of judgment and the formulation of basic policy on the part of Crown Point officials.

Sims v. Barnes

689 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1997

Were a prosecutor granted only a qualified immunity, the threat of lawsuits against him would undermine the effectiveness of his office and would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of his duty that is essential … In a defamation action, a prosecutor whose statement does not so inform will be entitled only to qualified immunity, for such a statement will have been made outside the scope of the prosecutor’s authority. 4 .

Wallace v. Estate of Davies Ex Rel. Davies

676 N.E.2d 422 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defendants also claim that Hartman is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 because his conduct in shooting Davies “was not such that reasonably competent police officers would have concluded … Whether Hartman is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of Davies. 4.

Podgor v. Indiana University

178 Ind. App. 245 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1978

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it — he must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Two, the student whose residence in Indiana is established because of the bona fide establishment of Indiana residency by his or her parents and who is entitled to pay lower tuition within the twelve month requirement.

City of Bloomington Utilities Department v. Walter

904 N.E.2d 346 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2009

In its motion for summary judgment, CBU argued that its conduct qualified for governmental immunity as a discretionary function under Seetion 3 of the ITCA. … The party claiming immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. 3 Boyd, 890 N.E.2d at 800.

Martin v. Heffelfinger

744 N.E.2d 555 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2001

The trial court held that Judge Hef-felfinger, in his official capacity, did not qualify under the prescribed meaning of "person" under § 1983, and therefore, he was immune from suit. Record at 30. … Martin contends that Judge Heffelfinger is clearly a state employee, and as his supervisors, Chief Justice Shepard, Governor O'Bannon, and the State had a duty to train him.

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. White

775 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2002

He saw no difference in conducting a qualified safety inspection in any of the states he was licensed in, because the National Board of Inspection Code establishes guidelines and procedures for the safe inspection of boilers … Our review of the evidence as a whole shows that Nasatka clearly performed an inspection for state certification purposes and that a copy of his report was made available to Hartford’s underwriting department.

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis

36 N.E.3d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2015

A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts … We find that here, the remaining provisions can clearly be given such effect. VI.

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Federal Express Corporation and 500 Festival, Inc.

6 N.E.3d 1006 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2014

Here, the designated evidence clearly establishes that both 500 Festival and FedEx provide or enable computer access for multiple users on their respective computer networks to access the Internet by means of the servers … Of course, simply because the defendants here have established that they are providers of an interactive computer service does not mean that they are automatically immune from suits.

Kathryn M Jasionowski v. Town of Whitestown

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a legal question for the court to resolve. Fort Wayne Cmty. Schs. v. Haney, 94 N.E.3d 325, 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).