Case law

Mathis v. Cooperative Vendors, Inc.

170 Ind. App. 659 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1976

assertion of those rights, privileges or immunities. … Cigarettes clearly fall within the category of “tangible personal property” defined in 6-2-l-l(k), supra.

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.

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

GoodCat, LLC v. Cook

202 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2016

In light of the burden imposed on interstate commerce as set forth above, the court finds that the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds any purported benefits. … Principles of sovereign immunity would preclude GoodCat any recovery against Defendants. See, e.g., Cmty. Pharmacies of Ind., Inc. v. Ind.

Elam v. State ex rel. Taylor

75 Ind. 518 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1881

Criminal courts are hereby established in each of the counties of Marion, Allen and Vigo; said court in the county of Marion, shall commence its terms on the first Mondays of January and July of each year, and in the counties … We are clearly of the opinion* that there is no provision, either in the sections quoted or in any other section of the act, from which it can be fairly inferred even,’that the General Assembly intended to abolish the existing

JULIUS v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2020

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … In ascertaining whether a particular right has been “clearly established,” the Seventh Circuit looks either to binding precedent from the U.S.

Department of Local Government Finance v. Roller Skating Rink Operators Ass'n

853 N.E.2d 1262 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2006

of the State Board only when the State Board’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, constitutes an abuse of discretion, is contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … It does not meet the “public benefit” test early established in Travelers’ and later elaborated in Ft. Wayne Sports Club. The State Board found: 18. . . .

Severson v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University

777 N.E.2d 1181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2002

The Supreme Court relied on a presumption that a “Compact Clause agency does not qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity ‘[ujnless there is good reason to believe that the States structured the new agency to enable it to … The police officers and agencies involved in investigating Eskew’s cocaine possession were immune from any liability through ITCA law-enforcement immunity.

City of Hobart v. Town of Merrillville

74 Ind. Dec. 602 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1980

Thus the legislature clearly expressed an intent for the consent requirements of § 31 to be applied to all town annexations. … I § 23 (privileges and immunities) and art. IV § 23 (special laws) of the Indiana Constitution.

McCormick v. Goebel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 2023

Defendants have argued they are entitled to qualified immunity, and Mr. McCormick’s response brief is grossly inadequate to refute their qualified immunity defense. … In lieu of making a robust argument identifying a clearly established right violated by the children’s placements, Mr.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Estate of Wallace

77 Ind. Dec. 384 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1980

The Department argues that the bequest does not qualify for an exemption under I.R.C. § 2055(a)(2) or (3) for the reason that judicial and administrative interpretations of § 2055(a) have established that the term “charitable … When a statute is amended by the addition of a provision, “[a] presumption is raised that the Legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears an amendment was made only to express more clearly the original

In Re the Marriage of Jones

180 Ind. App. 496 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 14, 1979

The reason is that the law of the case for reasons of policy must be accorded finality and hence immunity from perpetual collateral attacks. See Sheraton Corporation of America, supra. … An abuse of discretion is an erroneous conclusion and judgment, one clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom

PERRY v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … "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

Caldwell v. Patston

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2021

on their defense of qualified immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Walker v. Rinck

566 N.E.2d 1088 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1991

a form of relief to one who has suffered, it is well established that the law cannot provide a remedy for every injury incurred.” … An injection of RhoGAM, 1 Rh immune globulin, prevents the formation of the aggluti-nins in Rh-negative women who have received Rh-positive blood.

Sun Oil Co. v. GROSS INCOME TAX DIV., ETC.

238 Ind. 111 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1958

Appellant was a New Jersey corporation qualified to and doing business in Indiana. … no tax immunity.

Sloan v. Metropolitan Health Council of Indianapolis, Inc.

516 N.E.2d 1104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1987

Metro is a federally qualified health maintenance organization under Title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300e. … If under these allegations the plaintiff can establish negligence on the part of regular employees in the performance of their regular duties under the supervision and control of the center, liability may be established.

Jackson v. Trancik

953 N.E.2d 1087 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 2011

We will reverse only if the trial court’s decision is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Indianapolis *1091 Podiatry, P.C. v. … To establish an expert’s qualifications, only one characteristic — knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education — is required, so an affiant may qualify as an expert based on practical experience alone.

State Ex Rel. Zink v. Hoggatt

200 Ind. 338 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1928

Township, of Washington County, in the State of Indiana, and fully qualified in all legal respects to hold the office of trustee of Howard Township. … E. 794 , this court held that where the title to the office is clearly an unsettled question, a claimant to the office may be enjoined by one occupying the office under a claim of right, until the former shall have established