Case law

State ex rel. Staff v. Barlow

103 Ind. 563 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1885

It is averred that from the establishment of the commissioners’ districts, in 1831, until the end of the term, in 1869, the regular succession of terms for that district had been observed by the several incumbents. … some other ground, he was clearly entitled to it without regard to the act of March 7th, 1885.

ANNEE, ETC. v. State

256 Ind. 686 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1971

It is the well established rule in Indiana that this court will not disturb an award for damages when the amount is within the bounds of the probative evidence adduced at trial. City of Indianapolis v. … We cannot invade the province of the jury to decide the facts and cannot reverse unless the verdict is clearly erroneous.

LeSea Broadcasting Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

525 N.E.2d 637 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 17, 1988

“It is well established that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed in favor of the tax, and the burden is upon the one claiming the exemption to show that the property clearly falls within … Even if LeSea's property does not qualify for exemption under IC 6.1-1-10-21, it is not precluded from qualifying under IC 6-1.1-10-16 if it meets that statute’s qualifications.

Elliott v. Roach

78 Ind. Dec. 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1980

Rose, (1846) 8 Blackf. 155, 157 , to the limits and purpose of the qualified privilege. … The evidence clearly established not only that the Board received and retained the defamatory letter, but also at least suggested the Board maintained a “file” on such letter and that the letter was thought to be relevant

BRADLEY v. KOZIATEK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 6, 2025

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he [or she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Bradley's Eighth Amendment rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

J.L. v. State

789 N.E.2d 961 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2003

Foundational requirements to admissibility often require factual determinations by the trial court, and these findings are entitled to the same deference on appeal as any other factual finding, whether that is described as a clearly … Rule 808(6) permits the foundational requirements to be established by a "custodian or another qualified witness."

Burse v. State

515 N.E.2d 1383 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1987

Appellant has established that an actual conflict of interest existed. … The allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel has not been established. II Under Cause No.

POINDEXTER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2024

Poindexter did not suffer a First Amendment deprivation; and (3) they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "To overcome the defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the

Rankin v. Stigdon

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Gupta v. … “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes where [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Todd Rokita v. Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 16, 2025

And, significantly, those cases were decided several decades before the Indiana Supreme Court abolished sovereign immunity and the General Assembly enacted the Indiana Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) and the Home Rule Act, the stated … Moreover, the Board has failed to establish that these unquantified expenses are anything more than “mere preliminary work,” which does not establish a vested right.

JOHNSON v. COFFEE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … federal law and are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Underwood v. Russian Space Agency (In Re Rimsat, Ltd.)

196 B.R. 791 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 1995

This case also presents the potential for a conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in the event that the district court would determine that the defendants do not qualify for any of … the exceptions to immunity.

Scobey v. Beckman

111 Ind. App. 574 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 1942

therefore a qualified or base fee. … This condition as to use is clearly a condition subsequent.

Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co.

639 N.E.2d 258 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1994

Company *261 - The process has been fair, firm, and consistent - Respect for the individual has been an integral part of the process -_- The core values of Lilly are based on trust and honesty-we must communicate these clearly … Onee the communication is established as qualifiedly privileged, the plaintiff then has the burden of overcoming that privilege by showing that it has been abused. Id.

State v. Prater

922 N.E.2d 746 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2010

The words "with the intent" in Seetion 35-48-4-14.5(c) clearly refer to the "person who possesses" the chemical. … Neither does our interpretation "immunize[ ] the go-between." See Appellant's Brief at 6.

United States v. Handley

407 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 1976

(issuance of Special Grand Jury Report); In re Reno, 331 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Mich. 1971) (rejection of objections to immunity grant for Special Grand Jury). … Both the order empaneling the Special Grand Jury and the statute upon which it was based establish a broad and general mandate to the Grand Jury for criminal investigation.

DAWSON v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2023

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages if they did not violate a clearly established, specific federal right."

ROSS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2024

Further, "qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Ross has also failed to cite any comparable case law to suggest that the defendants violated a clearly established right.

Thomas N. Eckerle v. Katz & Korin, P.C. and Michael W. Hile

81 N.E.3d 272 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2017

The context of that statement clearly reveals that, included in the “monkeyshines,” which occurred concerning Newland, were the actions “of the professionals who appeared in this … [16] Regarding immunity because of absolute privilege, the trial court found and concluded: 18.

City of Richmond v. Scott

48 Ind. 568 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

the shares of stock in the national banks are entitled to the same immunity. … Rouse, 9 Wal. 468, -which clearly establishes the validity of the tax in question here, although the State had, before the-passage of the national banking law, so tied up her hands as that she could not impose the like tax