Case law

Ledbetter v. Hunter

810 N.E.2d 1095 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

"Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing." Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996). … Although it was well-established that malpractice insurance premiums had substantially increased, the evidence for the asserted causes was largely anecdotal. Id.

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.

Lamb v. City of Bloomington

741 N.E.2d 436 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2001

Salaam, 726 N.E.2d 888, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (quoting Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 227-28 ), trans. denied; Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 232 (“The ITCA ... established extensive immunity provisions which shield governmental units from … Count I, negligent performance of duty to respond timely to the fire alert, and Count II, negligent performance of duty to extinguish fire, clearly fall within the ambit of failure to provide adequate fire protection.

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.

Coghill v. Badger

418 N.E.2d 1201 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1981

the fatal defects in the notice cured by Coghill’s bald assertion that it “incorporates by reference” the alleged substance of the earlier phone conversation between Runnels and Scott; the contents and delivery statutes clearly … Because an IPTC claims adjuster would appear to qualify as an agent of IPTC, he would seem to be an appropriate agent for receiving notice of a claim against IPTC. . See also Health and Hospital Corp. v.

Mahowald v. State

719 N.E.2d 421 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1999

In 1989, the General Assembly established the Legislators’ Retirement System (LRS), codified at Ind.Code §§ 2-3.5-4-1 — 2-3.5-4-10. … Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.

Chad E. Hucker v. State of Indiana

4 N.E.3d 797 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2014

The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing a constitutional violation, and all doubts are resolved against that party. … Article 1, Section 231 The Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause states that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which

Simpson's Food Fair, Inc. v. City of Evansville

149 Ind. App. 387 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1971

EXCEPTIONS TO IMMUNITY DOCTRINE WHERE PRIVATE DUTY EXISTS In recent years the doctrine of immunity from civil liability has suffered continuing erosion. … In a suit by the parents of the girl against the housing author *393 ity, the court found that the housing complex was crime ridden, that the evidence clearly indicated the housing authority was, in fact, a private landlord

Patrick v. Miresso

821 N.E.2d 856 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2005

Officer Patrick was clearly acting within his scope of employment as he was pursuing a suspect to a crime and therefore attempting to enforce the law as required by the ITCA. 13. … The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. King v. Northeast Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 480 (Ind.2008).

Indiana State Police v. Don's Guns & Galleries

674 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1996

According to the complaint, Trooper Brown “erroneously established” by virtue of a “clearly erroneous inquiry” that Johnson’s handgun was stolen, and “his act of confiscating the handgun” resulted in Don’s Guns being involved … ISP asserts both its immunity and the absence of a private duty owed by ISP to Don’s Guns. Don’s Guns again argues that immunity is inapplicable here and, further, a private duty is owed.

Bradley K. Buchanan v. State of Indiana

122 N.E.3d 969 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2019

“We will . . . find a waiver of sovereign immunity only when the statute at issue contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature’s intention to subject the State to suit … Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(17), the Prosecutor is immune from suit on Buchanan’s claims as alleged.

State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana State Department of Health v. Cristobal Alvarez, C.A. by next friend Cristobal Alvarez

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2020

“When the pleadings present no material issues of fact and the facts shown by the pleadings clearly entitle a party to judgment, the entry of judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.” Book v. … [9] The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted a planning-operational test to determine if an act qualifies as a discretionary function under the ITCA. Jurich v. Ind.

Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority v. Cadence Blanchard

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2025

Court’s caselaw establishes “order” as the key phrase. See Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Ind. Horse Racing Comm’n, 827 N.E.2d 162, 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Smith v. … Therefore, this court will “not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous,” id. 52(A); that is, this court “must determine ‘whether the evidence supports the findings and, if so, whether

In Re Contempt Findings Against Schultz

428 N.E.2d 1284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1981

Clearly, the constitution does not require us to transform the possibility of further prosecution in this or another jurisdiction into a source of absolute protected silence on the part of the witness. … excluding the answers thus elicited, in any subsequent criminal case. * * * * * * It exempts no one from the consequences of a crime which he may have committed, but only from the necessity of himself producing the evidence to establish

Albright v. State

501 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1986

We agree with the State's first contention and find Albright did not establish that Mooney was qualified to express an opinion on the issue of contemporary community standards. … Our supreme court acknowledged that it would be "a denial of equal protection for state authorities to establish a policy that only blacks would be prosecuted for particular crimes and that whites would be granted immunity

E.L.C. Electric, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Labor

825 N.E.2d 16 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2005

Further, ELC requested, inter alia, that the Department be enjoined from: 1) maintaining a listing on any website of the CCW Violators "unless such violators have been established by a Court of law[]"; 2) disseminating information … We also noted that in a defamation action, statements that do not so inform the public, would be "entitled only to qualified immunity, for such a statement will have been made outside the scope of the prosecutor's authority

Hottinger v. Trugreen Corp.

665 N.E.2d 593 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 1996

In the establishment of her prima facie case, Hottinger relied on the expert opinion of Dr. … However, after her exposure to (2-4-D) in 1990, she had brain, peripheral nerve and immune function deficits consistent with toxic exposure to the herbicide.

Snyder v. Shelby County Department of Public Welfare

418 N.E.2d 1171 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

The work product immunity originally developed from the case of Hickman v. … If one statutory criterion is established by clear, cogent, and indubitable evidence, we will affirm the judgment.

State Bd. of Tax Commrs. v. Ft. Wayne Sport Club, Inc.

147 Ind. App. 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1970

NEITHER APPELLEE QUALIFIES AS A “FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION” Quite clearly, neither Ft. Wayne Sport Club nor St. Joe Athletic Club are fraternal beneficiary associations. … In our view, the well-established and obvious purpose for legislative conferral of tax exemptions requires a showing of some public benefit as a condition precedent to the granting of such exemption.

Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles

982 N.E.2d 312 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.