Case law

Clement v. State

524 N.E.2d 36 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1988

Ed. 2d 416 , establish that sovereign immunity does not extend beyond a state's borders into another state, and that Kentucky government entities are not immune from suit for torts committed in Indiana. … Although Clement's motion is unclear, the memorandum in support thereof clearly challenges the dismissal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

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.

Robins v. Harris

740 N.E.2d 914 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2000

Code § 36-2-2-24(a), which provides, in part: "The executive shall establish and maintain a ... county jail...." … Once the Commissioners establish and reasonably maintain a jail, they are not responsible for administering the manner of an inmate's incarceration. Id.

B.T.E. v. State of Indiana

82 N.E.3d 267 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2017

Supreme Court has noted, “[a] statute of this type makes possible some preventive action by police and courts to stop the criminal effort at an earlier stage, thereby minimizing the risk of substantive harm without providing immunity … This conduct clearly qualifies as “reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime[,]” an act specifically. identified in Section 5.01 as conduct that may be held to be a substantial step.

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

Drendall Law Office, P.C. v. Lucy Mundia

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2019

[16] During discussions between the trial court and counsel settling the jury instructions, the trial court stated, “[T]here’s clearly going to be an instruction that says that there is immunity for the … Groves, on the other hand, was definitive in his answer stating that no governmental entity would settle a case when it so clearly possessed legal immunity. 10

Virginia Tramill, Miah Gant, Marquel Cheaney and Jeremiah Tramill, the Mother and Children of Sara Tramill v. Anonymous Healthcare Provider

37 N.E.3d 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2015

The email language establishes only that the Appellants would not object to the third panelist being a forensic pathologist. … It does not establish that counsel agreed the third panelist would be a forensic pathologist and is not a stipulation.

Matter of Adoption of LC

650 N.E.2d 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 1995

We may not reverse the trial court's findings in such cireum-stances unless they are clearly erroneous. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). … Under ILC. § 81-3-1-6(a), the prospective adoptive parents must establish the written consent of all applicable parties listed in the statute.

Long v. Barrett

818 N.E.2d 18 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2004

; that her claims were barred by the defense of good faith; that they were shielded by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity; that her claims were barred by common law immunity; and that immunity pursuant to the Indiana Tort … Long initially testified that she was shown a warrant that indicated a charge of forgery, which would indicate Warrant #1; but, in later testimony, she clearly identified Warrant # 2 as the warrant shown to her and affirmed

Moore v. Jasper County Department of Child Services

894 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2008

Following their placement, both [C.B.M.] and *227 [C.R.M.] were evaluated and qualified for speech and occupational therapy services. … [[Image here]] Further, both of said children had medical issues, in that neither child was current in their immunizations.

Eakin v. Indiana Intergovernmental Risk Management Authority

557 N.E.2d 1095 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1990

Applying this analysis, the Commissioner claims the “Master Contract” is clearly an insurance contract. First, the Commissioner argues the townships have an insurance interest capable of being valued in money. … The hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting it was immune from liability under the charitable immunity doctrine.

Carroll v. State

740 N.E.2d 1225 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2000

The State concedes that the first Strickler component is established. … Thus, the criminal history was clearly within the State's reach.

Koehlinger v. State Lottery Commission of Indiana

933 N.E.2d 534 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 2010

DCSA Appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the Lottery enjoys immunity under the DCSA. … The Lottery contends that it is immune from the DCSA because its advertising activities are required or expressly permitted by state law.

Guinn v. Light

531 N.E.2d 534 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1988

Provision is made for the establishment of medical review panels to review all proposed malpractice complaints against health care providers covered by this article. … In this case the rights of the parties are clearly governed by the statute; and no injustice will result from following such statute.

Commissioner, Department of Revenue v. Partlow

769 N.E.2d 1212 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2002

that the "certifying physician clearly ignored the requirements of 49 CFR 391.41, 49 CFR 391.48 and the Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers report." … Based upon the advisory section, the Department contends that the section states: A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial vehicle if that person: Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of

State, Department of Natural Resources v. Morgan

432 N.E.2d 59 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1982

Appellees contend the Department owed James a duty established by the Strip Mining Act. Precisely what duty was owed by Department, appellees do not state. … Clearly, appellees invite us to expand the language of the statute to include any duty which they believe should be found under the statute. We respectfully decline the invitation.

McKibben Construction, Inc. v. Longshore

788 N.E.2d 452 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 12, 2003

McKibben objected to the affidavits on the grounds that the witnesses were not qualified as experts. … Converse's affidavit established the method used in determining septic system requirements. - Appellant's App. p. 376.

East Chicago Police Department v. Bynum

826 N.E.2d 22 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2005

“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act.” King v. Northeast Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 480 (Ind.2003), reh’g denied. … Trial Rule 50(A), which provides: Where all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury or an advisory jury are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdict thereon is clearly erroneous as contrary to the evidence

Hi-Tec Properties, LLC v. Brittany Murphy, Kendall Murphy, Lorie Murphy, and Jay Frazier

14 N.E.3d 767 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2014

clause seeking to immunize Hi-Tec against any damages caused by its negligence, whatever the source. … Hi-Tec has established no prejudice or reversible error. 17

Roddel v. Town of Flora

580 N.E.2d 255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1991

But the Supreme Court's opinion clearly contemplates that only roadblocks designed to cause death or serious bodily injury are sufficiently "unreasonable" to invoke § 1983 liability. … Even if we did not conclude that the defendants were immune, we would still conclude that dismissal was proper.