Case law

City of Anderson v. Weatherford

714 N.E.2d 181 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1999

However, limits have been established which recognize that officers are not immune from liability for all actions that are somehow tied to effecting an arrest. … Specifically, our supreme court has established that subsection (7) of the Act only confers immunity for the breach of a public duty, and provides no refuge to governmental entities or employees when a private duty [1] to

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Williams

238 Ind. 407 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1958

Appellant promptly *409 qualified and assumed office. … Clearly under the above provision the years 1950, 1954, 1958, etc., were years “proper to elect” such sheriff.

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.

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. John J. Wernert, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and The Methodist Hospitals, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2015

Parkview asserts that it has established its right to relief under Section 229 and Indiana law as a matter of law, or, at the very least, has established disputed material issues of fact. … Methodist argues that, because Parkview’s original submission fell short of establishing it qualified for DSH payments, Parkview demands special treatment.

HARNISHFEGER v. KOPCZYNSKI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2022

The Supreme Court holds that "clearly established law" in the qualified immunity context, "means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … The law to that extent was clearly established, and so Harnishfeger satisfies both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry at summary judgment. Kristofek, 832 F.3d at 798.

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.

Town of Montezuma v. Downs

685 N.E.2d 108 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1997

Since Flowers , the common law defense of governmental immunity has been replaced by the ITCA. … The summary judgment standard clearly provides that after the movants show they are entitled to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-movant to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Commissioner of the Department of Insurance

452 N.E.2d 441 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1983

Moreover, the trial court was clearly empowered with authority to grant the relief requested. … These allegations clearly stated the substance of the false representations as well as what was procured by the Commissioner.

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.

Inland Container Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

756 N.E.2d 1109 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 1, 2001

Thus, the amended statute limited who could qualify for the deduction. … Article 10, § 1 does not provide immunity to legislative policy judgments from judicial oversight, "but rather establishes mandatory minimum requirements for our system of property assessment and taxation." Boehm v.

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.

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hadley

170 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1907

This objection was clearly untenable, and the witness was rightly permitted to answer the question. … The ability of a neophyte or of a professor in elocutionary work may be shown by the opinions of those qualified to testify, and the father is prima facie qualified to pass an opinion upon the elocutionary ability of his

BROWN v. PERKINS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2020

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit unless their conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … "Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

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.

Fink v. Peden

214 Ind. 584 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1938

Before .one is permitted to take the examination he must establish that he has the educational qualifications as well as a good moral character. … Furthermore, the right to practice law is not a privilege or immunity granted to all citizens of the United States. See In re Lockwood 154 U. S. 116 , 14 S. Ct. 1082 , 38 L. Ed. 929 .

Rucker v. State

170 Ind. 635 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1908

Harman then in open court accepted said appointment and was duly qualified and sworn; that immediately afterwards the regularly drawn and duly qualified grand jury was sworn and instructed by the court, and immediately retired … To this end the accuser must, under the statute, clearly and distinctly state the facts relied on as the foundation of the proceeding, and, before he is entitled to a rule against the accused, he must in his information clearly

Brown v. Boyn (In Re Brown)

86 B.R. 944 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 1988

When the district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s decision on appeal, it must adopt the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. … The Indiana Code and Indiana cases recognize and clearly define a spendthrift trust and its requirements. Pursuant to Ind.

MITCHUM v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2021

"Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether Officer Groce and Chief Roach are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether the law clearly established, as of May 31, 2018, that a police officer violates a person's Fourth

McGuire - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO FILINGS v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right and must also “show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id.

Carr v. State

175 Ind. 241 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1911

affirmatively and clearly his charge to the exclusion of all such doubts. … A. 190, held it to be constitutional and not in conflict with the “privileges and immunities ” clause of the federal Constitution or of our Constitution.