Case law

City of Charlestown, Indiana v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Association Corporation, Joshua Craven, Tina Barnes, David and Ellen Keith, and Bolder Properties, LLC

111 N.E.3d 199 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2018

[7] In February 2016, the City Council enacted an ordinance that established an inspection program. Appealed Order at 5 (#22). … that an injunction should issue without requiring the moving party to establish irreparable harm or greater injury.

State v. King

502 N.E.2d 1366 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1987

An attached, sworn affidavit showed that the employer of King and Karnes, Celebration, qualified as a resident wholesaler, importer or distributor of fireworks, and had been issued a fireworks certificate of compliance by … Supplier is clearly allowed to raise facts and points of law pursuant to IC 35-34-1-8; however, the kinds of factual issues which can be raised by a motion to dismiss are limited.

Huffman v. INDIANA DEPT. OF ENVIR. MAN.

788 N.E.2d 505 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2003

clearly suggested that intent. [3] *509 Because the legislature already has defined who qualifies for administrative review, it was error for the OEA to read into the phrase "aggrieved or adversely affected" a common law … or adversely affected" person merely by establishing that she is a citizen of the State of Indiana.

City of Gary v. Conat

810 N.E.2d 1112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

A judgment is clearly erroncous when a review of the record leaves us with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … Our investigation into Co-nat's Complaint establishes that he conceded that Calo acted within the scope of his employment.

State Ex Rel. Ross v. Anderson

31 Ind. App. 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1903

the privileges and immunities must be regarded as agreeing and obligating themselves to conform to the conditions and limitations expressed or fairly implied. … They must be reasonable, and “must not interfere with the vested and substantial rights of the stockholders ; and they must not be contrary to public policy or the established law of the land.”

City of Indianapolis v. Constant

498 N.E.2d 1308 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1986

The immunity section of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, IND. … The effect of governmental immunity regarding discretionary functions is that it will prevent liability even in a situation where negligence might otherwise be clearly established. See Jacobs v.

Crist v. South-West Lake Maxinkuckee Conservancy District

875 N.E.2d 222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2007

While we agree that Indiana Code section 14-33-2-28 clearly states that an appellant can appeal the trial court’s order establishing a conservancy district directly to our Supreme Court, Rule 5(A) trumps that statute and … citizen, or any class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Scott v. City of Seymour

659 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1995

The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the motion. Gilliam, 648 N.E.2d at 1238 . … In finding governmental immunity, we reasoned that Crown Point had made discretionary decisions which clearly involved the exercise of judgment and the formulation of basic policy on the part of Crown Point officials.

Gerald G. Gray v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana

102 N.E.3d 917 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2018

This evidence clearly supports the Board’s inclusion of “and other patients” in the Board’s order. We find no error. [18] Dr. … Gray] sees as a lack of an established standard of care.” (State’s Br. 35).

Jacobs v. Board of Com'rs of Morgan County

652 N.E.2d 94 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1995

Jacobs's accident occurred in 1990, and thus clearly falls within the design immunity section. … Morgan County may be immune from liability if it can establish that the challenged decision was the result of a policy-If the oriented decision-making process. *99 County is successful in this, then we may not judge the wisdom

St. Joseph County Police Dept. v. Shumaker

812 N.E.2d 1143 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2004

If the moving party meets these requirements, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish genuine issues of material fact for trial. Id. Upon appeal, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court. Id. … First, the broad rule of immunity from Seymour has clearly been overruled. However, the narrow scope of immunity set forth in Tittle has also been abandoned.

Klobuchar v. Purdue University

553 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1990

Immunity from liabili ty. … We find this language of the ITCA clearly applies to the present situation and none *174 of the cases that Norma cites convince us otherwise.

Thompson v. State

425 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1981

There is no question but that the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity incorporated not only immunity from liability for torts, but also immunity from liability for interest. See Anglin & Stevenson v. … State, 46 Ind.LJ. 544 (1971); Note, Sovereign Immunity in Indiana —Requiem? 6 Ind.L.Rev. 92 (1972).

City of Gary v. Allstate Insurance Co.

598 N.E.2d 625 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1992

(Ariz.App.1977), 116 Ariz. 225 , 568 P.2d 1123 (employer qualified as a self-insurer under state law is not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage); Shelton v. … An uninsured motorist is clearly a person "other than" a governmental employee.

James Griffith v. Indiana Department of Corrections (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2019

Griffith contends that the State Defendants are not immune because, given that it is undisputed that some of his personal property is missing, one or more persons clearly failed to properly secure … R. 14(A) (listing nine types of orders that qualify).

Ellis v. City of Martinsville

940 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2011

State, 259 Ind. 55 , 284 N.E.2d 733 (1972), the Indiana 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 … immunity.

Waldo v. Gregory Ex Rel. Gregory

469 N.E.2d 480 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1984

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court. … That concern was met here as the evidence clearly was sufficient to establish Dr. Conneally as a qualified expert in the scientific field involved.

Barnes v. Barnes

566 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1991

The Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the action, noting the rationale underlying the bar to actions by a child against his or her parent: It is well established that a minor child cannot sue his parent for a tort … On the contrary, the Smith court clearly contemplated suits based on allegations such as those in this case — i.e.

Michael Leroy Tunis v. State of Indiana

129 N.E.3d 258 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2019

record by the lower court of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-220 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 14  matter constituting the contempt,” and “interfere with the judgment only where it clearly … He claims that “[r]reliance on advice of counsel should not establish willful contempt.” (Appellant’s Br. 13.) [13] First, it is unclear whether Tunis did rely on his counsel’s advice.

Sarah Nickolson v. Tammie Freed (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

Like Freed, the defendant in Burton raised the affirmative defense of government employee immunity for conduct not “clearly outside the scope of the employee’s employment.” … Conclusion [22] Because Freed was not acting clearly outside the scope of her employment at the time of the collision, she is entitled to government employee immunity.