Case law

Holt v. City of Bloomington

181 Ind. App. 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1979

Furthermore, Holt says, Indiana case law has established that a statute is to be construed prospectively unless language in the statute clearly indicates a legislative intent to make it apply retroactively. … Our Supreme Court largely eliminated the last vestiges of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity of the State in Campbell v.

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 303 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1991

There is immediate and irreparable harm by the defendants continually utilizing such illegal regulations and/or unpromulgated policies as was established herein. … Clearly, the appeal was not moot so long as the state's funds remained in escrow under the trial court's invalid escrow order.

JAW v. State

650 N.E.2d 1142 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 15, 1995

In addition, Toepp's motion alleged that he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit or in the alternative that he was entitled to qualified immunity and immunity under the provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims … After considering Defendants' motions for more definite statement, Ind.Trial Rule 12(E), the trial court ordered J.A.W. to amend his complaint in order to more clearly identify the nature of his § 1983 claims.

Juana Maria Ambriz de Williams v. Adrian Guzman Jr. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2020

On July 5, the State charged Williams with cruelty to an animal and harboring a non-immunized dog. See 64D03-1807-CM-6318. … Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Porter County Animal Control rather than Guzman would be accountable if the alleged trespass is not subject to qualified immunity.

Parks v. State

789 N.E.2d 40 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Stated even more clearly, we generally will affirm a decision concerning a discretionary motion to amend if there is any rational basis for the decision. Strodtman v. … A review of the motions reveals that dismissal was sought on the following grounds: (1) general immunity of opposing counsel, (2) immunity of successful party opponent for actions undertaken in litigating prior lawsuit (8

State v. Magnuson

488 N.E.2d 743 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1986

Immunity from liability. … Expert testimony established that the reduced speed limit applied when children were arriving at or leaving the school grounds.

Estate of Kelly Ecker, by its Personal Representative, Patricia Ann Leturgez v. Estate of George Scott Samson

59 N.E.3d 282 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Our standard of review is well established: When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. … Here, the exclusions of the nonprobate statute are clearly set forth, and we are required to determine whether a contract falls within its purview.

Jamerson v. Anderson Newspapers, Inc.

469 N.E.2d 1243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1984

California's shield law is unique amongst the others; it merely provides the journal ist immunity from being adjudged in contempt for refusal to disclose his sources. Cal.Evid.Code Ann., See. 1070 (West Supp.1984). … The legislature clearly has the power to abrogate or modify common law rights and remedies. Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., (1981) Ind. 418 N.E.2d 207 . *1250 See Sidle v. Majors, (1976) 264 Ind. 206 , 341 N.E.2d 763 .

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Thomas Douglass

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2019

action only if it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Based on these qualifying judgments and notwithstanding the fact that he had relocated to California and had established his residency, on September 19, 2014, BMV sent Douglass the Notice to his last

Burp v. State

612 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1993

Burp voiced no objection on the ground that the State had failed to establish the chain of custody of the sample taken from him or that the person who performed and interpreted the tests was not properly qualified. 1 He did … Burp also argues that "[t]he testimony at trial does not clearly indicate that the blood serum result of 167MG/DL is a measure of weight."

K.T.P. ex rel. A.S.P. v. Atchison

848 N.E.2d 280 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

Medicaid covered the expenses for K.T.P.’s birth and subsequent hospitalization. 4 On October 9, 2003, the State filed a petition to establish paternity. … On November 1, 2004, in an order establishing paternity and child support, the court found that Atchison admitted paternity and established Atchison as the biological father of K.T.P.

Peterson v. Universal Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

572 N.E.2d 1309 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1991

The WHO IS INSURED section of the uninsured motorists endorsement indicates the following persons qualify as insureds: 1. You or any family member. 2. … Clearly, Peterson does not fall within either of these categories. Accord Rodriguez v.

Cansler v. Mills

765 N.E.2d 698 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2002

Only one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert. Creasy, 730 N.E.2d at 669. Therefore, a witness may qualify as an expert on the basis of practical experience alone. See id. … Establishment of the Presumption Cansler asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the facts of this case established the statutory presumption.

Dana Dodson v. Board of Trustees of Indiana University, d/b/a Indiana University and Indiana University Northwest William J. Lowe (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2017

Clearly, the Disclaimer dictates the University never intended the Handbook to form part of its contract with Dodson. See Lim, 2001 WL 1912634, at *19. … Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur. 2 For this reason, we need not address the parties’ contentions regarding qualified and Eleventh Amendment immunity.

City of Indianapolis v. The Estate of Charles Michael Alexander

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2026

[64] First, the Alexanders did not have the burden to prevent the application of immunity. Indeed, it is the City, as the party seeking immunity, who had the burden of establishing immunity. … Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind. 1994) (“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the [ITCA].”).

Smith v. Lake County

807 N.E.2d 53 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2004

In this case, the parties clearly felt the need to select a judge, rather than accept normal assignment. The parties were presented with a panel of three judges under the procedure established in Rule 79(F). … Accordingly, we conclude that because Judge Dywan qualified and assumed jurisdiction of the case after he was selected as *58 the special judge under the procedure established in Trial Rule 79(F), Judge Dy-wan was required

State v. Velasquez

944 N.E.2d 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2011

Kline’s testimony clearly shows that her purpose was to provide treatment for G.S. and G.S.’s family. … [State]: I didn’t ask to qualify her as an expert....

Cram v. Howell

662 N.E.2d 678 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1996

Further, as in Webb, Cram's complaint fails to establish that it was reasonably for-seeable that Dr. Howell's conduct would cause Cram harm. … Similarly, the social utility derived from vaccinations and immunizations clearly outweighs the risk of harm to third parties.

Doan v. Herod

56 Ind. App. 663 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1914

Any other rule would be clearly unjust and equally harsh, for it would cast the financial burden of a contest upon those who win it. … Under such a system an heir or distributee might establish his right to the estate only to realize that it had been heavily charged or entirely absorbed by the putative executor’s fruitless attempt to establish a will.

Indiana Dept. of SR v. FRANK PURCELL WALNUT LBR.

282 N.E.2d 336 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 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.