Case law

Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc.

982 N.E.2d 329 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

Specifically, Bailaban argues that Ind.Code §§ 31-33-6 grants civil immunity to any individual who makes a report of child abuse and does not restrict immunity to those who make a report to DCS. … In his reply brief, Bailaban argues that the behavior described in the e-mail messages in his supplemental appendix clearly falls within the conduct outlined in the Indiana mandatory child abuse reporting statutes and that

In Re Kefalidis

714 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1999

However, in determining whether the answer might have that effect, the court is bound by the statement of the witness "unless it clearly appears from the examination and the circumstances before the court that the witness … incrimination is justified: [T]he court is authorized to determine whether the answer might criminate the witness, but that in determining this, the court is bound by the statement of the witness as to its effect unless it clearly

Virginia Garwood and Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana

77 N.E.3d 204 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2017

Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity). … [43] Because the Garwoods in reply address only the immunity issue, see Appellant’s Reply Br. at 16-19 (Swain not entitled to absolute immunity), 19-22 (Swain not entitled to qualified immunity because

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Teckenbrock

620 N.E.2d 740 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1993

The State asserts that to obtain a summary judgment, the Teckenbrocks are required to affirmatively show that they qualify for SSI. We cannot agree. … person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt

448 N.E.2d 333 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1983

Ordinarily, though, plaintiff cannot appeal therefrom, since it does not qualify as an involuntary adverse judgment so far as the plaintiff is concerned. … That the legislative intent was to constrict individual liability, not expand it, is apparent from the very title of the section-"Immunity of public employees."

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Frank Purcell Walnut Lumber Co.

152 Ind. App. 122 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1972

After qualifying to do business in Kansas, Purcell purchased the assets of the Kansas corporation. … taking advantage of its domesticity, while still maintaining the same degree of tax immunity.

Loomis v. Ameritech Corp.

764 N.E.2d 658 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2002

Immunity Ameritech and the Attorneys argue they are immune from the Loomis-es' suit due to the rule against collateral attacks on judgments. … Mei- er set forth the immunity rule that "[alb-sent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's

King v. Northeast Security, Inc.

732 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2000

Our standard of review is well established. … And we continue to believe that the City of Rome test is appropriate for determining whether a governmental unit qualifies for immunity for failure to dispatch emergency services (but only for that purpose).

State, Family & Social Services Administration v. Thrush

690 N.E.2d 769 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1998

States participating in the Medicaid program must establish reasonable standards for determining eligibility, including the reasonable evaluation of an applicant’s income and resources. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17); Glaser v. … does not qualify for Medicaid.

Pierce v. State Department of Correction

885 N.E.2d 77 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2008

The DOC offers no funding to assist in obtaining the additional education needed to qualify for the special education license. … The authority to establish minimum requirements for licensure and the authority to establish minimum requirements for employment are not one and the same.

Lucas v. Estate of Stavos

609 N.E.2d 1114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1993

Recognizing "the possible harsh result" if a party is ruled indispensable, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Lomar concluded that under Louisiana law a party should be considered indispensable, "only after the facts clearly … Where paternity has been established, an illegitimate child may qualify as a dependent child within the meaning of our wrongful death statute. Hollingsworth, 442 N.E.2d at 1152 .

McVey v. State

863 N.E.2d 434 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Here, the trial court clearly did not consider the affidavit to be worthy of credit.

Ada Brown v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

45 N.E.3d 1233 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2015

The Medicaid program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. (2001), was established by Congress in 1965. … To qualify for Medicaid, an applicant must meet both an income-eligibility test and a resources-eligibility test. Id.

Millington v. State

154 Ind. App. 42 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1972

Compelling incriminating testimony — Immunity from prosecution — Exceptions. … Unless the court finds that the issuance of the order would be clearly contrary to public interest, the witness shall comply with the order of the court.

Beauchamp v. State

788 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 21, 2003

Luerssen establishing that he had not formed any opinion with respect to Chanee's injuries. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind.1999).

Blasius v. Wilhoff

863 N.E.2d 1223 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2007

AB.’s physical development was good and immunizations were current. A.B. appeared to recognize the Wilhoffs and respond to them as parents. … Michmerhuizen did not qualify this opinion by stating the effects would be merely short-term.

Noble County ex rel. Noble County Board of Commissioners v. Rogers

717 N.E.2d 591 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1999

The burden is on the moving party to establish two elements. Squires v. Utility/Trailers of Indianapolis, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 416, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). … Trial Rule 65(C) clearly states that a “governmental organization shall be ■ responsible for costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

Union Insurance v. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Insurance

74 Ind. Dec. 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1980

The legislature would be granting to particular citizens privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, would not belong to all citizens. . … This lawsuit did purport to establish Union as a valid insurance company, but it does not estop this action.

Brosamer v. Mark

540 N.E.2d 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1989

As the appellees have not filed a brief, Brosamer is only required to establish prima facie error to obtain reversal of the judgment. See Sharp v. Jones (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 593 . … Railroad Retirement Act were protected even after they were paid to their beneficiaries: "[f}urther, the equal protection clause is not violated by the fact that benefits paid under a pension plan for public employees may be immune

In re: Indiana State Fair Litigation: Polet v. Mid-America Sound

28 N.E.3d 333 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2015

Most significantly, under Section 15-13-2-1, the Commission was established by the State to “perform! ] esséntial governmental functions." Ind.Code § 15-13-2-1(b)(3) (emphasis 'added). … Here, as discussed above, the statute establishing the Commission provides that the Commission is “a separate body, corporate and .politic” and “not a state agency,” but the statutes discussed above clearly support the conclusion