Case law

Edward Skillman v. Ivy Tech Community College

52 N.E.3d 11 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

, unless a state has waived its immunity to such suits. … [14] Skillman also contends that the State legislature could have amended the MWL after the decision in Alden, holding that states are immune from private suit under the FLSA, to clearly state whether

Owen v. Vaughn

479 N.E.2d 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1985

Judge Vaughn is judicially immune from suit on such grounds. … Further, the Tort Claims Act, I.C. 34-4-16.5-19, specifically establishes a basis for attorney fees for actions falling under its auspices.

Clary v. Lite MacHines Corp.

850 N.E.2d 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2006

Thus, BB & C would not be entitled to immunity under the attorney judgment rule. … We also note that judgmental immunity jurisdictions do grant lawyers immunity from legal malpractice claims where the lawyers' judgment involved a "clouded state of the law," ie., a point of law that is unsettled.

Porter County Sheriff's Department v. Brooks C.C. Willmon (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Willmon cross-appeals, claiming Sheriff is not entitled to immunity. … “Whether an immunity applies is a matter of law for the courts to decide,” and “[t]he party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity.” Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

In Re: The Estate of Al Katz, and Lawrence T. Newman v. Robert W. York (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” Id. … any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Goble v. State

766 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2002

Rush has no immunity from prosecution by Michael Lynn...." Id. at 928. … The trial court clearly considered the length and stage of the proceedings, recognizing that the trial was almost complete when *6 Goble requested that Mr.

Boatwright v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc.

810 N.E.2d 766 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2004

The Fire Marshal next argues that Celebration's claims for monetary relief are barred by governmental immunity. … That statute contemplates permits for each location, and establishes a schedule of charges related to the number of stands a retailer operates.

Sander v. State

816 N.E.2d 75 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2004

The statute establishes three criteria for eligibility for educational credit time. … Finally, the applicant must establish that the qualifying ed-ueational achievement was accomplished.

Sobieralski v. City of South Bend

479 N.E.2d 98 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1985

It is well established that the rights intended to be protected under the federal and Indiana constitutional guarantees of equal protection and privileges are identical. Sidle v. … I, § 23 states, "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, *100 upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." 4 .

State of Indiana v. Eastlund B. Wendell (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2019

An abuse of discretion occurs when the “trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. … The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and, therefore, an abuse of discretion.

City of New Albany, Indiana v. Ecosystems Connections Institute, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2025

“It is well- established that failure to raise an argument or issue below results in waiver of that issue.” N.H. Ins. Co. v. Ind. Auto. Ins. Plan, 176 N.E.3d 514, 524 n.4 (Ind. Ct. … The work to remove the Dam, i.e., the excavation of the Dam, therefore clearly falls under the purview of Indiana Code section 14-28-1- 22.

Montgomery v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY

824 N.E.2d 1278 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005

The Court ultimately determined that Congress had clearly intended to abrogate such immunity, but that the ADEA was not a proper exercise of its constitutional authority. … Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind.1988), and this Court has stated that conclusory arguments do not discharge the appellant's burden of establishing reversible error." Pope v.

Warram v. Stanton

415 N.E.2d 114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1981

The second part (Ind.Code 4-22-1-14 through 4-22-1-19) delineates the procedure for judicial review of administrative orders, decisions, or determinations not clearly and unambiguously excepted therefrom. … Thus, if he is a mere interloper, not qualified to represent the class, neither he nor the class whom he purports to represent have any valid status in court. ...” 237 Ind. at 318 , 145 N.E.2d 573 .

Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP and State of Indiana

122 N.E.3d 935 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2019

The designated evidence establishes that the land had been used for row crops since at least 1941. 6 Further, the record clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs’ non-farming use of their properties … Privileges and Immunities Clause [39] Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which

Denny Alan Neff v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

113 N.E.3d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

Here, the designated evidence clearly establishes that Neff himself acknowledged that his employment was for an indefinite duration and was at-will. … [26] To establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a communication with defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, and (4) damages. Wartell v.

Indiana Department of Correction v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

486 N.E.2d 612 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1985

Samuelson was, in fact, as qualified for the Reformatory positions as either Mr. Hipes or Mr. Fishback. Secondly, Dr. … Consequently, the DOC clearly established a factual basis for a bfoqg based on prisoner's privacy rights. We turn then to a discussion of the second required showing.

Fowler v. Napier

663 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1996

Whether the trial court erroneously qualified Dr. Giles as an expert. III. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the DNA test results. IV. … We find no error. *1200 IL Expert Witness Fowler next argues that the trial court improperly qualified Dr. Giles as an expert witness.

Stoner v. Howard Sober, Inc.

124 Ind. App. 581 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1954

Article 1, §23, of the Constitution of Indiana, is as follows: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all … Precedent therefor is established in the case of State ex rel. Standard Oil Co. v. Review Bd. (1951), 230 Ind. 1 , 101 N. E. 2d 60 .

Greenwood Professional Park v. Public Service Commission

487 N.E.2d 472 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1986

In addition, the Commission found the population of the complex was not now nor likely to be in the future totally immune to the benefits of price signals of individual metering. … Not all the offices were of a nature requiring patients to disrobe and thus immune to price signals, and there was no evidence all the offices would be so in the future.

Minks v. Pina

709 N.E.2d 379 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1999

Moreover, we decline to establish a bright line rule that any actions after an officer determines not to arrest an individual are no longer considered enforcement. … Applying this test, the Hammond defendants clearly did not owe a private duty to Minks.