Case law

Chamberlain v. Walpole

796 N.E.2d 818 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2003

Judge Robertson dissented in Warrick, writing, inter alia: I believe that language of IC 16-9.5-1-6 clearly authorizes Mary Wallace to maintain an action for wrongful death. … The above provisions clearly designate who is qualified to prosecute a claim. Plaintiffs-Appellees here fall within the scope of qualified persons: Lucille McKnight as spouse, and Shane Keith McKnight as child.

Wayne v. Lake Station City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 … “A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Lora Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation

10 N.E.3d 1034 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2014

First, we determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously in the statute. Id. … constitutional claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 For this reason we need not consider whether Hoagland complied with the ITCA’s provisions. 9  immunity

VanDalsen v. Roswarksi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 2024

And if she did, the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity on her claim, because any such right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. … established,” such that the defendants could be held liable for money damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Langley v. State

256 Ind. 199 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1971

This is not to say that a petitioner must first establish the fact that no waiver has occurred in relation to a particular error from which relief is sought in order to obtain a hearing. … The law is clearly against Richardson on his first contention.

COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELF. OF LAKE CTY. v. Morrow

301 N.E.2d 787 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1973

provides, in part, as follows: "Duties of the county boards. — The county board of public welfare shall appoint a county director of public welfare who shall be appointed solely on the basis of merit from eligible lists established … Kelley clearly has an interest relating to the subject of this action.

Edward Zaragoza v. Wexford of Indiana, LLC

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2024

And, applying our well-established summary- judgment standard, we find conflicts in the evidence that require us to reverse the trial court. … In any case, trying topical medications before immune-system drugs, the court concluded, aligned with the “treatment protocol.” Id. at 636–37.

Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury

215 Ind. 110 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1939

Clearly the Legislature possessed the constitutional authority to classify upon that basis. The highways are public property. … The state may establish regulations and impose license fees as-compensation for the use of the hiyhway, based upon load per axle or carrying capacity. Hicklin v. Coney (1933), 290 U. S. 169, 173 , 54 S. Ct. 142 , 78 L.

Dontae M. Clark v. State of Indiana

6 N.E.3d 992 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2014

An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. … Clark has failed to establish fundamental error in this regard. II.

U.S. Land Services, Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc.

826 N.E.2d 49 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2005

Surveyor then identifies qualified surveyors in the area where the job is to be performed and requests bids from various surveyors. … The trial court’s judgment will be reversed only when clearly erroneous. Id. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id.

Billy L. Musgrave, Jr. and Kim A. Musgrave v. The Aluminum Company of America, Inc., and Alcoa Fuels, Inc.

995 N.E.2d 621 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2013

This clearly would occur[] if and when[] the Plaintiff’s doctor informed the Plaintiff that there was a reasonable possibility if not probability that the Plaintiff’s injury was caused by an act of the … as a Matter of Law Having established that Alcoa and Peabody were engaged in a joint venture, we next consider whether the Act grants the joint venture and its members immunity as a matter of law from a civil action

Baker v. Wagers

472 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1984

Conneally, as supervisor of paternity testing, was eminently qualified to authenticate the challenged document. … However, Bradley is clearly distinguishable upon both the facts and the underlying analysis.

Gibson v. Indiana Department of Correction

899 N.E.2d 40 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2008

statute, we presume that the statute is valid and place a heavy burden on the challenger, who must clearly overcome that presumption.” … Similarly, one who violates Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-5 has clearly caused the death of someone.

Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, Lodge No. 255

521 N.E.2d 678 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1988

The percentage of income (2.8) given as charitable donations can hardly be claimed to cloak the appellee with charitable immunity. … The wording of the statute clearly did not apply to appellee's situation. The taxing authorities simply were not following the statute in that instance.

Anderson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

412 N.E.2d 819 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1980

“The worker adjustment assistance provisions enacted in 1962, however, have clearly not been very effective. For the first seven years of the program, no worker was found eligible for its benefits. … to whom it is applicable if they meet the qualifying requirements outlined in the next section.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. American Dairy of Evansville, Inc.

167 Ind. App. 367 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1975

Initially, it should be noted that in construing the relevant statutory language granting the claimed exemptions, we are bound by the established rule of construction that in the presence of ambiguity the language of the … Though clearly essential to the cleaning process, their impact is arguably less direct than that of the cleaning compounds. The drawing of a distinction at this point may seem unduly technical.

Patten v. Smith

172 Ind. App. 300 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1977

Patten’s tendered instruction number 8, which was rejected by the trial court, reads as follows: “I instruct you that to establish that the defendant, Maurice Patten, or the defendants published the pamphlets with *305 reckless … This instruction, which is synonymous with the one given in this case, was determined to be “clearly impermissible” because it erroneously interpreted the New York Times standard. Beckley Newspapers v.

State of Indiana v. Justin Bazan

45 N.E.3d 856 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2015

An abuse of discretion occurs only if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 974 (Ind. Ct. … The two statutes have markedly different thresholds for establishing a violation.

Haggard v. PSI Energy, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 687 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1991

upon the rights, privileges or immunities secured to the complaining party by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is "private" on the one hand, or "state action

Denna Delacruz and Barry Barger v. Paul Wittig

42 N.E.3d 557 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2015

Thus, the counterclaim is clearly an affirmative one and not one merely one that seeks recoupment or setoff. … [14] In sum, Wittig’s counterclaim was untimely filed and does not otherwise qualify for exemption under Trial Rule 13(J)(1). As such, it was time-barred and subject to dismissal.