Case law

John D. May v. Erik C. Allen (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or if the decision is contrary to law. Garrett v. … Specifically, May says the trial court erred in determining Judge Allen was immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County

994 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2013

During the trial, Rollett stipulated that the camps do not qualify for subdivision pursuant to the current standards set forth in the VCC. … We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Schultz v. LaBine

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

Tyler Flota v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

The State moved for the trial court to grant Flota immunity. The court granted Flota immunity and advised him that he must answer questions and provide items that are requested. … Flota was granted immunity and ordered by the court to testify under a subpoena.

Boyle v. Anderson Fire Fighters Ass'n Local 1262

497 N.E.2d 1073 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1986

The next question is whether striking public employees are immune from such liability. Immunity The Strikers are not immune from liability for their acts. … This agreement was clearly intended to benefit the residents of Anderson by insuring the uninterrupted performance of that service. Id.

McCormick v. State, Department of Natural Resources

673 N.E.2d 829 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 1996

In Indiana, those persons described in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 382 qualify as invitees. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 642 (Ind.1991). … Although invitation does not in itself establish the status of an invitee, it is essential to it.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc.

412 N.E.2d 261 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1980

Taxpayer qualified for these “Vendor discounts” by purchasing and selling minimum quantities of the promoted product. … Testimony established that for Taxpayer to attempt to use a precise accounting measure would have been economically unjustifiable.

Lindsey v. DeGroot

898 N.E.2d 1251 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2009

DeGroot Dairy, a farming operation that produces milk as well as crops, is clearly an agricultural operation for the purposes of the Indiana Right to Farm Act. A. … Specifically, the Lindseys claim that “[tjhere is clearly a dispute about the correct interpretation of the statute and its application to DeGroots actions.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20.

Eric D. Smith v. The Marion County Prosecutor's Office, Terry R. Curry, John G. Baker, Margrett Robb, Justice May, Justice Mathias, Justice Sullivan, Sr., and The Indiana General Assembly (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 30 2015, 9:32 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, … A determination as to a sentence modification is clearly within the bounds of the Marion County Prosecutor and his staff’s prosecutorial duties and is left to their discretion.

Reeve v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

510 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1987

Clearly, the conduct falls within the ruling of Vernon, supra. … In Miller, the failure to raise the defense of governmental immunity effected a waiver of it on appeal. The case of Frazier v.

Bennett v. Richmond

932 N.E.2d 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2010

Clearly he experiences some difficulty in terms of his information processing. … He also clearly presents symptoms of anxiety and depression, also frequently observed in traumatic brain injury patients.

Arising out of Janiszewski v. Tonn & Blank, Inc.

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

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Culver Educational Foundation

510 N.E.2d 206 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1987

Bernauer, who was qualified as both a remedial reading instructor and a librarian, worked as a temporary librarian in Maryland for six months in 1976. … court finds such finding, decision, or determination of such agency is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Smith v. Wrigley

908 N.E.2d 354 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2009

The complaint establishes that Plaintiff is in a segregation unit. His supplemental material shows that all persons in the unit are subject to the same procedures and the actions are not being applied to him alone[.] … Prisoners have no right to be provided with Rogaine, and any lawsuit claiming such a right is clearly frivolous.

Robertson v. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc.

960 N.E.2d 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2011

In Indiana it is well established that the right to maintain an action for wrongful death is purely statutory and did not exist at common law. … Privileges and Immunities Our test for analyzing a privileges and immunities challenge to a statute is laid out in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994).

T.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

971 N.E.2d 104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2012

“Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). … Rather, Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that “mentally retarded parents should be immune from losing their parental rights.” Appellant’s Brief at 18.

Cowart v. State

756 N.E.2d 581 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2001

In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, our supreme court has established a two-part test. … In Dowd, our supreme court clearly recognized that age classifications may be proper, even though the age classification in the statute at issue in Dowd was unconstitutional, and expressed the belief that penalties should

Hill v. Beghin

644 N.E.2d 893 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1994

We observe, however, that an examining physician's privilege from civil liability may be qualified when malpractice is demonstrated. … Immunity is a central consideration of this noble goal." Id. 148 Ind.App. at 271 , 265 N.E.2d at 249 (emphasis in original).

Van Bree v. Harrison County

584 N.E.2d 1114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1992

Reflecting these common law principles, I.C. 34-4-16.5-3(3) provides immunity for temporary conditions caused by the weather, but does not provide for immunity when the condition is permanent or not caused by the weather. … In fact, the rule clearly states that the judge “shall inform counsel of its proposed action ...

Hosler Ex Rel. Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc.

710 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1999

We first noted the well-established principle that an action for wrongful death is purely statutory and did not exist at common law. … I, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which provides, “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms,