Case law

Indianapolis Osteopathic Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Local Government Finance

818 N.E.2d 1009 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 9, 2004

purposes exemption for the Healthples, the State Board has violated Article 1, § 283 of the Indiana - Constitution, - which provides: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16 clearly provides that the exemption applies only to that portion of the building that is "owned, occupied, and used" for charitable purposes.

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

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.

Smith v. State

500 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

First, he main *192 tains that the identification evidence does not establish that he was the perpetrator. … The victim testified that she could see Smith clearly in court and that he was the man who raped her. A rape conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Rutledge v.

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 .

Reid v. State

267 Ind. 555 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1978

The defendant objected to this evidence upon the grounds that the State had failed to establish the reliability of the TMDT and further that Chlebek did not qualify as an expert witness. … That rebuttal evidence is discoverable, however, is clearly established by Wardius v.

RODRIGUEZ v. MARTZ

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" at … constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

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.

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.

Castor v. United States

883 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 1995

They have fully participated with the generous briefing schedule the court has established and have expressed their claims in forceful terms. … Conversely, “Bivens and its progeny do not waive sovereign immunity for actions against the United States.” Laswell 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.

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana

8 N.E.3d 668 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2014

We will not construe a statute in a manner so clearly contrary to the General Assembly’s view on the subject. … She also clearly articulated her attacker’s identity, the circumstances, the time she was attacked, and the location of the attack.

Levy v. State

161 Ind. 251 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1903

It must appear very *256 clearly, that the legislation is in conflict with some express provision of the Constitution, or the statute will he upheld.” … The fourth objection, that the act grants special privileges and immunities, is without • foundation. Its provisions apply to all transient merchants, whether residents or nonresidents of the county and State.

F.D., G.D., and T.D. b/n/f J.D. and M.D. and J.D. and M.D., individually v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Evansville Police Dept., and Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2013

Id. § 34-13-3-3(8).9 Commonly referred to as "law en- forcement immunity," we have said that what is "required to establish immunity [is] that the ac- tivity be one in which government either compels obedience to laws, rules … inquire whether the Legislature intended to make the defendant liable in tort because if every breach of a statute constitutes negligence per se, then “every statute in effect would create an implied right of action—which clearly

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.

Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.

614 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1985

In any event the defendant Moore is clearly entitled to the immunity defense under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). See also Davis v. … Brelje, 701 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir.1983) granted immunity to state officials for supervising and establishing policies for a state mental institution. In Silverman v.

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.

Beamon v. Hamed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 22, 2021

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 person … However, “because a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

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.

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].”).