Case law

Antwoin Richmond v. Drew Adams, Melissa Pine, and John Doe 1 (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2018

Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2005) (no absolute judicial immunity for parole officers’ actions involving “day-to-day duties in the supervision of a parolee”). … [12] Richmond’s amended complaint, filed on February 2, 2018, clearly indicates that the Defendants are being sued in their “official and personal capacity”.

Raymond McNeil Love v. Mike Herron, Daryl Kent, Jerry Jones, and Pen Products Correctional Industries (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2015

Code § 11-10-6-2 (mandating the establishment and operation of “industry and farm programs for offenders”). … immunity would eviscerate the Bivens remedy)

Morrison v. Sadler

821 N.E.2d 15 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2005

Given the high degree of deference we accord to legislative classifications, the Plaintiffs have not established that this particular classification violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the: Indiana Constitution … First, the Plaintiffs must establish that Article 1, § 1 is capable of independent judicial enforcement.

In the Matter of Adoption of Lockmondy

168 Ind. App. 563 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1976

Therefore, considering the evidence most favorable to Jester, we must affirm if the evidence clearly, cogently, and indubitably establishes one of the statutory criteria for granting an adoption without consent. … Since the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment of the trial court establish clearly and cogently that Lockmondy failed to provide for the care and support of Stephen

Natalie A. Harves, by Richard E. Harves and Karen Sue Cutter as Co-Personal Representatives v. Daniel Rusyniak, in his Individual Capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and Decatur County Division of Family Resources.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2023

the agency action was (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … [7] The Medicaid program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., was established by Congress in 1965.

Lincoln R. Pickett v. State of Indiana

83 N.E.3d 717 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2017

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. … The instruction avoids the use of the term “serious violent felon” by naming the prior qualifying felony and citing the statute.

Decatur County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Public Service Co.

159 Ind. App. 346 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1974

REMC’s contention that it was not a public utility and held that statutory language found in § 18a clearly established that the Legislature could see no distinction between an REMC and other public utilities and that the … That statute establishes the procedure whereby termination is.effected.

Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Department

855 N.E.2d 731 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2006

Clearly, the roadway obstruction was caused by bad weather. … These facts support a ruling of immunity.

Bolin v. State

634 N.E.2d 546 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1994

However, the repeated commission of similar erimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule. … The two arsons for hire were clearly similar. The repeated commission of similar crimes, however, is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Sharp

732 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2000

Accordingly, we held that NIP-SCO was immune from liability for its allegedly negligent acts. … To the contrary, the chain-of-command established by the Act would be jeopardized by such a duty, as that duty would elevate the role of NIPSCO to being co-equal with that of the Town of Highland, an effect clearly not intended

Novak v. Apollo Printing and Thermography, Inc.

562 N.E.2d 1305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1990

similar to those of the owner or manager of the establishment, but generally spends more than 50 percent of his time in production or sales work. … Again, the trial court's findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous.

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Indiana Department of Insurance

868 N.E.2d 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2007

Further, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id. … Unlike the December 1, 2004 documents, this Memorandum and attached information clearly establish the amount and methodology used to calculate the 2004 True-Up Assessment, now disputed by Sun Life.

Henderson v. Evansville Press, Inc.

127 Ind. App. 592 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 1957

judicial proceeding but if it was made by him while in the due course of his official acts the public welfare requires that a mantle of protection be thrown about him. *603 This is accomplished by extending to him absolute immunity … Only the evidence can establish that fact. Also, it cannot be determined from the “article” that the Judge’s statement was in fact made in the court room.

Abernathy v. Gulden

46 N.E.3d 489 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2016

As such, every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome-by a contrary showing. … The added subsection 4(e) merely established that even though the *497 application is triggered by the judgment of the third qualifying offense, the dates of the offenses are to be used to calculate whether the qualifying

Butler University v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

77 Ind. Dec. 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1980

The United States Supreme Court long ago established in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. … Rouse, 75 U.S. 439 , 8 Wall. 439 , 19 L.Ed. 498 , hold directly and clearly that grants of tax immunity of the type here involved are protected by the federal constitution. In the Home of Friendless case, 75.

Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Development Commission

941 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2010

We further conclude, however, that the record does not clearly establish that the MDC has issued a final appealable decision in this case, denying us and the trial court the power to address the merits of Lightpoint's appeal … Quite simply, interpreting the language in the way Lightpoint urges would produce a result which would run *1061 counter to the General Assembly's clearly expressed intent to establish- the MDC as the single planning and

Flanner House of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Flanner House Elementary School, Inc., Aliza Anderson, Chi Blackburn, Lorri Bryant, Dr. Cathi Cornelius, Robert Dotson, Brooke Dunn, Frances L. Hudson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2017

This Court should nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary. Id. … schools and their organizers violates the equal privileges and immunities clause.

Summers v. State

495 N.E.2d 799 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1986

Clearly, these are matters beyond the scope of the knowledge and experience of the average juror. … Viewed from the proper perspective of appellate review, the evidence recited in our discussion of Issue One clearly was sufficient to establish that Summers was the driver of the truck.

Catt v. Board of Com'rs of Knox County

736 N.E.2d 341 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2000

Negligence of the county in designing the culvert, if any, would not be relevant because the absence of the culvert was clearly temporary at the time of the accident. See Leinbach v. State, 587 N.E.2d at 736. … In addition, Catt's designated materials also establish that the culvert has washed away because of flooding. R. 263, 266.

Lex, Inc. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PARAGON

808 N.E.2d 104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 5, 2004

Before an ordinance will be declared to be repugnant to the Constitution, its fatal constitutional defects *111 must be clearly apparent. Id. … Our review of the record clearly shows that the first prong of the Collins test has been satisfied.