Case law

Ridlen v. Four County Counseling Center

809 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 1992

Clearly much has transpired in the area of state action jurisprudence since the Hall court rendered the aforementioned opinion in 1980. … There are undeveloped issues relating to the immunity of certain defendants as well. It is correct that the individual physicians, although perhaps not Four County itself, would have qualified immunity. See Hedge v.

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)

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.

Richards v. Richards

60 Ind. App. 34 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1915

section shall not apply * * * to conveyance * * * when made to husband and wife. * * * ” The law affecting a conveyance of real estate to husband and wife has been frequently construed by the Supreme Court and the rule is established … If the language clearly shows an intention to take and hold the title as tenants in common, then such intention must be given effect.

Culver-Union Township Ambulance Service v. Steindler

611 N.E.2d 698 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1993

He observed, however, "that Congress has seen no need to establish a uniform approach" in § 1983 actions. … Other limitations and impediments to § 1983 actions exist and are readily applied, e.g., immunity of some officers, rejection of punitive damages.

In Re AC

905 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2009

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. … Mother further contends that the juvenile court erred by ordering her to establish paternity because paternity had already been established in August 2007.

Radcliffe v. International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund (In Re Radcliffe)

372 B.R. 401 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 19, 2007

The statutory scheme clearly evidences Congress’ intent that the beneficiary of an ERISA-qualified plan is to receive the benefits to which he is entitled under the plan unless the conduct of the beneficiary in his status … The evidence in this case establishes quite clearly that International directed its actions against the debtor’s entitlement to receive payment of his monthly pension benefits; intentionally undertook that action; and did

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.

Ellis v. Pryor

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … 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.” Walker v.

Brown v. Alexander

876 N.E.2d 376 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2007

P & L is a governmental agency of the City of Richmond. 1 The undisputed evidence established that a safety chain was missing from the trailer prior to the accident but had never been replaced. … In enacting the ITCA, the legislature could have allowed a claim to proceed where the governmental entity knew about the negligent actions and was clearly at fault.

Toney v. State

961 N.E.2d 57 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2012

Because the plain language of the statute provides that physical pain is sufficient to establish bodily injury, and because the evidence clearly shows that the victim experienced physical pain, we affirm. … In contrast to this requirement for “extreme pain,” there is no similar qualifying language with regard to bodily injury. All that is required is physical pain.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.H. & B.H. (Minor Children), and T.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

989 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2013

We conclude that Uceny’s testimony was sufficient to establish CAPI’s reliability. B. … We will set aside the court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

FORBES v. CERVANTES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2024

Even if the alleged conduct in Claim I were held to violate a constitutional right, no such right is "clearly established." … Conclusion Cervantes is entitled to qualified immunity on all Forbes' claims; even as alleged Forbes' case does not implicate his constitutional rights.

Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals v. St. George Serbian Orthodox Church

905 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Tax Court · May 7, 2009

George prima facie demonstrated that its cultural center qualified for the religious purposes exemption as provided in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY St. … The Indiana Board determined that these documents prima facie established that the cultural center was used 63% of the time for a religious purpose. (Cert. Admin. R. at 134-35.)

BONNER v. NUTTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 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 … There are three ways to demonstrate that a right is "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity: 1.

MCKINNEY v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 6, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers 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." Allin v. … to qualified immunity.

State of Indiana, acting on behalf of the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. International Business Machines Corporation

4 N.E.3d 696 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2014

Appellate courts “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). … The record clearly shows that the State did nothing to oppose IBM’s prejudgment claim, or to prove its sovereign immunity defense. Therefore, it lost on the merits.

Colman v. Heidenreich

269 Ind. 419 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1978

The prosecutor offered the anonymous female immunity from criminal prosecution if she would come forward, but Colman indicated that he never conveyed this offer to the female. … The transcript and record clearly show that Colman has never discussed this matter with his client’s female friend.

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.

Swann v. Garrett

811 F. Supp. 1336 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 1992

Sovereign Immunity In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues that Swann has failed to establish the waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, thus denying this Court jurisdiction. … Swann has the burden of meeting this standard with “cogent and clearly convincing evidence.” Cooper v. United States, 203 Cl.Ct. 300 , 304 (1973).