Case law

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

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.

MCCULLOUGH v. DOWNS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2025

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v. … To make a qualified immunity determination, the Court must "(1) determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) if so, determine whether that right was clearly established

Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County, Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners, and Vanderburgh County Recorder

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2013

During the trial, Rollett stipulated that the camps do not qualify for subdivision pursuant to the current standards set forth in the VCC. … We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Royal v. Payne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 2022

Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity 1. … The Right Plaintiff Seeks to Vindicate is not Clearly Established Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory

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.

Edward Blackburn v. State of Indiana

130 N.E.3d 1207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2019

court denied the motion, citing lack of authority to compel the State to give Hadden immunity. … Upon motion, a trial may be continued at the court’s discretion and shall be continued upon a showing of good cause established by affidavit. Ind. Trial Rule 53.5.

MOORE v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 7, 2022

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that 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 … "To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show two elements: first, that the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and second, that the constitutional right was clearly established at the

Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Smith

170 Ind. 439 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 1908

The facts averred in the complaint bring the case clearly within the act of 1903, supra, and we therefore hold the petition sufficient to support the action. 1. … The action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to each of these returns was clearly right.

Walton v. Gordon

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

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity

Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

296 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 2017

However, "[a]lthough this Court's reasoning in the Buquer case answers the central legal question presented here, the facts are disputed[,]" id. , as is Marion County's defense of qualified immunity. Id. … case would likely involve an appeal of the qualified immunity issue, at least, as well as ultimate resolution by the trier of fact.

City of South Bend v. Lewis

138 Ind. 512 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1894

The words ‘qualified voters' as used in the constitution must be taken * not those qualified and entitled to vote, but those qualified and actually voting. … From what.we have said, we think it clearly appears that four leading principles may be. considered as fully established, namely: First.

In Re The Marriage of: Cheryl Ann Hester v. Michael D. Hester, Jr.(mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2016

[4] The October 5, 2012 QDRO was sent to the Con-Way retirement plan administrator, and senior retirement plan administrator Jack Cosgrove determined that it did not qualify as a qualified domestic relations … Cosgrove sent a letter dated January 18, 2014, to Wife’s counsel stating that the submitted QDRO related to Husband’s pension plan benefit would qualify as a qualified domestic relations order,1 and on January

Higgins v. Swygman

194 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1923

And where a court is charged with the duty of causing a public drain to be constructed, after having established it and ordered its construction, it clearly has jurisdiction to entertain ' a proper petition by a qualified … However clearly a complaint or petition may show the existence of a right of action in favor of somebody who did not file it, a demurrer under the fifth subdivision of §344 Burns 1914 (Acts 1911 p. 415, §2) should be sustained

BRUMITT v. SMITH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2023

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v. … Defendants raise a qualified immunity defense, arguing that Sergeant Smith's use of force did not violate any clearly established right.

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.

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.

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.

State v. Daley

165 Ind. App. 513 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1975

The State contends that the Act, and specifically the above provision, was a legislative response to the abolition of sovereign immunity. … The established rule in this State is that “Statutes are to be construed as having a prospective operation unless the language clearly indicates that they were intended to be retrospective. (Citations omitted.)

Jones-Bey v. Wright

944 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 1996

McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2625 , 132 L.Ed.2d 866 (1995), but the defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, which applies to RFRA claims arising prior to the statute … The qualified immunity doctrine provides that officials performing discretionary functions are immune from damage claims if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable