Case law

Veolia Water Indianapolis LLC v. National Trust Insurance Co.

973 N.E.2d 3 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2012

“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. If the evidence permits conflicting reasonable inference as to material facts, the governmental unit has failed to establish immunity.” Bules v. … “A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts

Board of School Commissioners v. Pettigrew

851 N.E.2d 326 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2006

Because we hold that the Board, Grubb and Torzewski are immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity, we need not reach whether the statements of Grubb and Torzewski were defamatory. … Defamation The Board maintains that even if the statements of Grubb and Torzewski were determined to be defamatory, it is immune to Pettigrew's claim of defamation under the doctrine of qualified privilege.

Newton v. Yates

170 Ind. App. 486 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1976

These, items were not gathered in preparation of litigation, and clearly are not a part of the work-product immunity, and are relevant. … A showing of “good cause” by the moving party will necessitate an overriding of the qualified immunity and necessitate production of the documents. Newton claims that she had met the requirements of showing good cause.

In Re Train Collision at Gray, Ind.

654 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 1995

Further, it is the challenger's burden to show that the alleged constitutional defects are clearly apparent. Matter of Tina T. (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 48, 56-57 (citation omitted). … permit other units to eventually qualify.

Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smith

682 N.E.2d 569 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1997

In support of the existence of a qualified privilege, Smith designated only his own brief affidavit testimony which is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, the existence of a qualified privilege. … Smith failed to establish, as a matter of law, that his statements to Kendall were protected by a qualified privilege.

Yerkes v. Heartland Career Center

661 N.E.2d 558 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1995

corporation, or *561 (x) board or commission of one (1) of the entities listed in subdivisions (1) through (9); Yerkes argues that although Heartland is a school, it is not a school corporation and, thus, that Heartland does not qualify … However, Heartland is a vocational school established pursuant to statutory authority granted only to school corporations.

Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

424 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1981

Pape (1961), 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , which established the immunity of municipalities from § 1983. … The finding of a discriminatory practice was clearly based on facts that either appeared on the record or could reasonably be inferred from the record.

Kinder v. Doe

540 N.E.2d 111 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1989

In this case the records are clearly necessary for the resolution of an issue pending before the court-whether the reporter is not immune from civil lability because the report was made maliciously or in bad faith. … In order to encourage such reports the legislature had provided for limited confidentiality and qualified immunity for reporters.

Indiana Department of Correction v. Stagg

556 N.E.2d 1338 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1990

DECISION The trial court made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law which can only be set aside if they are clearly erroncous. … Additionally, there is no requirement of a showing of good faith in order to qualify for the immunity. First, LC. § 34-4-16.5-8(7) does not restrict the provision to "law enforcement officers".

Perry v. Whitley County 4-H Clubs Inc.

931 N.E.2d 933 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2010

At all entrances to the Horse Barn, the 4-H Club had posted "Equine Activity warning signs" that were "clearly visible." Id. at 18-19 (affidavit of Bill Leeuw, 4-H Club's President of the Board). … Perry does not dispute that the 4-H Club qualifies as an equine activity sponsor. . In Anderson v.

Row v. Holt

834 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2005

Whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity "Government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

L.K.I. Holdings, Inc. v. Tyner

658 N.E.2d 111 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1995

The governmental entity seeking to establish immunity bears the onus of proving that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. Peavler, supra. … We must keep in mind that the purpose and policy underlying governmental immunity is the cornerstone for evaluating any claim of governmental immunity. Id.

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSP. & INS. CO. v. White

775 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2002

He saw no difference in conducting a qualified safety inspection in any of the states he was licensed in, because the National Board of Inspection Code establishes guidelines and procedures for the safe inspection of boilers … Our review of the evidence as a whole shows that Nasatka clearly performed an inspection for state certification purposes and that a copy of his report was made available to Hartford's underwriting department.

St. John Town Board v. Lambert

725 N.E.2d 507 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2000

In the past, Indiana appellate courts established several legal principles to assist in deciphering whether governmental units were immune from tort liability under the common law. … Indiana statute grants the authority to establish streets to municipalities. Ind. Code § 36-9-2-5 .

Gagan v. Yast

966 N.E.2d 177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

[[Image here]] The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to designate sufficient material to establish that Defendant abused his qualified privilege. … Moreover, Yast’s lack of ill will is clearly established by the host of witnesses who testified that Yast never said anything derogatory about Gagan or the other sellers.

W.S.K. v. M.H.S.B.

922 N.E.2d 671 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2010

W.S.K. clearly established the first element-he is African-American. The second element-W.S.K.'s qualifications-was the subject of discussion at oral argument. … Therefore, W.S.K. *689 did not establish that he was qualified for privileges at M.H.S.B.

Sanders v. Stewart

157 Ind. App. 74 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1973

An employer could report anything, whether true or not, with any kind of intent, including malicious, and be immune from libel actions. … If facts showing an absolute privilege are established, malice is conclusively rebutted; but, if the occasion shown is one of qualified privilege merely, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and the plaintiff

Babinchak v. Town of Chesterton

598 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1992

Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) places the burden on the movant to establish the propriety of granting summary judgment. … Accordingly, Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-3 provides 17 separate and distinct instances where governmental immunity is available. It is necessary for Chesterton to qualify for only one category in order for immunity to attach.

Cornell v. Hamilton

791 N.E.2d 214 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2003

She raises the following issue for review: Whether the State’s funeral leave policy, under which an employee may be granted funeral leave upon the death of a qualified relative, the death of a spouse’s qualified relative, … However, under the alternate classification scheme identified in Martin , she was clearly a member of the burdened class, and the court's analysis proceeded from this premise.

Owens v. Schoenberger

681 N.E.2d 760 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1997

is clearly a question of fact.” … Therefore, we do not find it to be an erroneous decision by the trial court that as a matter of law the letter was not protected by qualified privilege and Angus could not assert the defense of qualified immunity.