Case law

In Re Creation of Conservancy Dist.

875 N.E.2d 222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2007

Crist did not file a motion seeking discretionary review with the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 56, and this case does not qualify for mandatory Supreme Court review pursuant to Rule 4(A)(1). … While we agree that Indiana Code section 14-33-2-28 clearly states that an appellant can appeal the trial court's order establishing a conservancy district directly to our Supreme Court, Rule 5(A) trumps that statute and

Thomas v. Brown

824 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 1993

A suit against a state official in his personal capacity is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment — although the state official may be able to assert personal immunity defenses (i.e., qualified immunity) and a damage award … The long duration of a cruel prison condition may make it easier to establish knowledge and hence some form of intent, cf. Canton v.

Foo v. Trustees of Indiana University

88 F. Supp. 2d 937 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liabil *966 ity for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Whether the State Defendants will be protected by qualified immunity ‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken

Delarosa v. State

938 N.E.2d 690 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2010

Cassada was granted ―use immunity‖ to testify.3 Cassada testified that sometimes in the fall of 2006, Payne began making plans with Lucio to kill Rebecca to get full custody of their son, and he gave Lucio a key … The trial court found that Delarosa qualified for sentences of life without parole (LWOP) for the murder counts, and imposed consecutive LWOP sentences.

Edward Charles Johnson v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2026

In response, Johnson claims immunity does not apply if a state official violates a clearly established right, such as the right to due process. [DE 30 at 2.] … His response seems to be alluding to the doctrine of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clark v. DeKalb County Sheriff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 3, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As for whether the rights here are clearly established, the notion that they were is properly encapsulated in Bennett v.

Lowder v. Marshall County Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2025

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 … That then leaves only the question of qualified immunity for Officer Tapia, and in particular whether the constitutional right here was clearly established. See McGee, 55 F.4th at 572- 73.

Indiana Real Estate Commission v. Ackman

766 N.E.2d 1269 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2002

The decision should be reversed only when it is (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess … Mere inconvenience is insufficient to establish prejudice. In re Curry Printers, Inc., 135 B.R. 564 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ind.1991).

Estate of Sullivan v. United States

777 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 1991

. § 14.4 (a)(3) had authority to request information concerning the decedent’s survivors and could have easily identified qualified claimants. … health care provider” for purposes of the states’ medical malpractice acts which limit the availability of the cap to such “qualified health care providers”.

Felker v. Caldwell

188 Ind. 364 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1919

one occupying the office under a claim of right until the former shall have established his title in an action at law. … The question involved in this latter case was clearly for the law side of the court.

Pierce Governor Co. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

426 N.E.2d 700 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1981

A statutory amendment raises a presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was made only to more clearly express their original intent. Van Orman v. … A temporary plan or method resulting in normal production would not qualify.

Wanetta Marie Lloyd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 31 2015, 9:22 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be

In Re the Adoption of H.N.P.G.

878 N.E.2d 900 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2008

In the summer of 2004, a paternity test established that Breedlove was not H.N.P.G.’s father. … The legislature established the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and probate courts.

Troutwine Estates Development Co. v. ComSub Design & Engineering, Inc.

854 N.E.2d 890 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2006

The trial court's findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … Photographs Because we conclude that the trial court properly refused to qualify Cup as an ex *903 pert witness, therefore excluding his testimony, we agree with the trial court that the Developers failed to establish the

Layne v. United States

190 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1961

Major Layne was at the time in question a part of the reserve components of the defendant’s military establishment. … Major Layne qualified for and received a regular pay allowance from the defendant under the said national laws. Title 31 U.S.C.A. § 698 .

Pitts v. Mills

165 Ind. App. 646 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1975

The complaint further fails to allege sufficient facts to establish the additional requirements of IC 1971, 18-5-10-24, supra. … In Montagano , the court stated: “It cannot be seriously questioned thát taxpayers of an annexing city who do not qualify as remonstrators can maintain a declaratory judgment suit to challenge an annexation ordinance.

Randy L. Hotmer v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2020

“To qualify for Medicaid, an applicant must meet both an income- eligibility test and a resources-eligibility test. … If either the applicant’s income or the value of the applicant’s resources is too high, the applicant does not qualify for Medicaid.” Id. (citation omitted).

RICHARDSON v. FREEMAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2025

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

Gertz v. Estes

879 N.E.2d 617 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2008

Findings of Fact David and Nichelle argue that the trial court clearly erred in making its findings of fact. … In their Reply Brief, David and Nichelle suggest that the trial court's order somehow violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

Puryear v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

790 N.E.2d 138 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2003

An examination of Progressive’ policy and applicable contract law establish the contrary. … We further note that insurance-contract law establishes that Progressive’s policy clearly and unambiguously limited its coverage. This court interpreted an identical policy in Millspaugh v.