Case law

Hendricks County, Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green

120 N.E.3d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Assembly’s intention to waive sovereign immunity. … As such, a statute must contain “an affirmative ‘expression’ or ‘declaration’ of the legislature’s intention to waive the State’s immunity” and requires that there is a “waiver of sovereign immunity

Person v. State

661 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1996

Pursuant to I.C. 35 — 47—2—3(f)(2) (1995 Supp.) a person must be eighteen or older to qualify for a license to carry a handgun. … But, a problem arises because a child who commits dangerous possession of a handgun also implicitly commits carrying a handgun without a license, because clearly the child would not qualify for the issuance of a license.

Snyder v. Smith

7 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2014

dismissal. 16 When they are accused of violating a plaintiffs constitutional rights, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless they violated constitutional or statutory rights that were “clearly … a defense of qualified immunity.’ ” Alvarado v.

Sivard v. Pulaski County

809 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 1992

Under qualified immunity, however, government officials generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Coleman court held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the sheriff’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Coleman v. Frantz, 754 F.2d at 730-31 .

Pippenger v. Gruppe

883 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 1994

This was due to the nature of the qualified immunity defense, which imposed upon the plaintiff the burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights in order to rebut the … The party resisting disclosure first has the burden of establishing that documents qualify as work product. Hodges, Grant & Kaufmann v. U.S.

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

592 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1992

We do not perceive the scope of work product immunity to be as extensive as the State envisions. … Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not entitled to the qualified immunity provided by this section.

PATTON v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

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

immunity arguments. … Sheahan, 218 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2000) (restating "well established" principle that qualified immunity applies only to individual capacity claims). D.

Miller v. Griesel

297 N.E.2d 463 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1973

Griesel was not qualified as an expert witness. … The record clearly demonstrates that the trial court did not consider Dale H.

Turner v. Sheriff of Marion County

94 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2000

We also assumed that the defendants moved for qualified immunity and summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ knock and announce claims. 1. Qualified immunity for unlawful entry claims denied. … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to the substance of a plaintiff’s claims but an immunity from the litigation.

Hartbarger v. Blackford County Department of Public Welfare

733 F. Supp. 300 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 1990

Officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants have now raised the defense of qualified immunity.

McComas v. Brickley

819 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights reasonably knowable at the … If such a violation has been established by the facts, the court must determine whether the law was “clearly established” at the relevant time. Id.

Long v. Turner

664 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants, alternatively, request that the individual defendants be afforded qualified immunity based on the fact that the evidence establishes that they acted in good faith and not contrary to clearly … Long is obligated to prove not that the standards in general are clearly established, but that the right in this particular factual context is clearly established, Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551, 554 (7th Cir.1989).

State, Dept. of Nat. Resources v. Taylor

419 N.E.2d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1981

Therefore, the Department is clearly a state agency within the purview of the Tort Claims Act, and with this conclusion the Taylors do not disagree. … Insomuch as this action was undertaken by the Department pursuant to a duty entrusted to it by statute, it qualifies for immunity under Ind.

Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Department

868 N.E.2d 425 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2007

In any event, more recent law established through the Indiana Tort Claims Act recognizes that state and local governments may have tort responsibility for damages flowing from negligence, but grants immunity for that negligence … Immunity under the act is a question of law to be determined by the court. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.2001). The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing it. Id.

Lenn v. Gentry

762 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 1990

The test whether the immunity applies is one of “objective legal reasonableness,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 , the action being viewed “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time … not been so established as law, then defendants are entitled to be protected by qualified immunity from having to proceed in the defense of this action.

Buckley v. Standard Investment Co.

536 N.E.2d 311 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1989

Clearly, Citizens qualifies as a political subdivision under subsection (iii) or (x) of the definition quoted above. … In order to qualify for the immunity extended under IND.CODE 34-4-16.5-3(11), however, a governmental entity must satisfy several other requirements.

Cory v. Carter

48 Ind. 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

This the constitution and subsequent recognized and decided constitutional legislation clearly establish. Acts June 18th, 1852, 1 G. & H. 443; Hatwood v. The State, 18 Ind. 492 ; Barkshire v. The State, 7 Ind. 389 . … At all events, the legislative action is conclusive, unless it clearly infringes the provisions of the constitution.

Woods v. City of Michigan City, Ind.

685 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 1988

Still, qualified immunity protects the officers from individual liability unless the detention violated clearly established rights — in other words, Mr. … Woods violated a right clearly protected by an Indiana statute. 9 Accordingly, as a matter of law, the officers are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Mowery

743 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1990

The Supreme Court has recognized that state officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v.

Felton v. Board of Com'rs of Greene County

796 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The principle behind the doctrine of qualified immunity is that in cases where “the law at the time [that a particular governmental decision was made] was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected