Case law

Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC v. Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

909 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 24, 2009

To be sure, the words "own, occupy, and use" restrict the activities that may be conducted on the property before an entity will qualify for an exemption. … Oaken Bucket therefore prima facie established that the Heartland space was predominately used for charitable/religious purposes.

Perdue v. Gargano

964 N.E.2d 825 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2012

As such, Section 273.2(d)(1) clearly contemplates at least two bases for the denial of benefits: refusal and failure to cooperate. … Lastly, there is no issue of material fact as to whether Perdue is a "qualified individual with a disability."

State Ex Rel. McGonigle v. Madison Circuit Court

244 Ind. 403 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1963

“[A] statute on the books at any given time, not judicially declared unconstitutional or invalid, 1 is presumed to be valid 2 until the contrary clearly appears; 3 . . .” I. L. E. … which time territory formerly outside the city can be either rearranged or re-established within the city for election purposes.

Rowan v. State

431 N.E.2d 805 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1982

He also argues that a death-qualified jury is per se unrepresentative and more likely to find guilt. Defendant cites no persuasive authority for his position. … He is not able to establish that any other relevant evidence exists.

Bochenek v. Walgreen Co.

18 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 1998

Absent a factual dispute, whether the qualified privilege protects a statement is a question of law. Id. Once the privilege is established, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant abused the privilege. … She states-that Walgreens “cannot avoid a showing of malice or ill-will under [the qualified immunity] standard which negates the privilege.”

P J v. Review Board

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2024

P.J. cites to no clear authority establishing the motions panel erred and we find none. … the indigency statute, automatically qualifies him to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

Martin v. Roberts

464 N.E.2d 896 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1984

Officer Brown therefore had to show to the trial judge his knowledge and experience in the field to qualify as an expert. … On appeal, Martin's burden is to establish that the evidence most favorable to Roberts, together with all reasonable inferences, conclusively established that she knew of, and understood, a given danger and that she voluntarily

Zickefoose v. State

270 Ind. 618 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1979

In this case, there are direct evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom establishing the necessary specific intent. … A statute of this type makes possible some preventive action by police and courts to stop the criminal effort at an earlier stage, thereby minimizing the risk of substantive harm without providing immunity for the offender

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. Wernert

36 N.E.3d 1185 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2015

again to qualify, effectively creating a second wave of submission for all hospitals without a set deadline, and that the standards established by FSSA are reasonable and adherence to those standards is not arbitrary and … Methodist argues that, because Parkview’s original submission fell short of establishing it qualified for DSH payments, Parkview demands special treatment.

Sims v. Kernan

29 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 4, 1998

The doctrine of judicial immunity affords state judges absolute immunity for past judicial acts regarding matters within their court’s jurisdiction, even if their “exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave … Sims relief on these claims would require a finding or judgment that his conviction was invalid, and thus would clearly implicate the fact of his conviction. Mr.

Canfield v. Sandock

563 N.E.2d 526 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1990

Clearly, none of this information has the slightest causal or historical connection to the condition in issue nor any possible relevance to the trial of this cause. … It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the [trial] court that he is mistaken. Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 , 71 S.Ct. at 818 , 95 L.Ed. at 1124 .

Benavidez v. City of Rochester, Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2023

on the basis of qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the federal right at issue was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id.

Mulder v. Vankersen

637 N.E.2d 1335 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

The party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden to establish the essential elements of the privilege being invoked. Community Hospitals, 594 N.E.2d 448 . … Thus, the alleged communications regarding VanKersen at the May 20, 1992, meeting were clearly within the scope of the peer review privilege.

Walker v. Stone

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2025

Third, the defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional, as they used only a reasonable amount of force to obtain what was in Mr. … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity. Their motion for summary judgment must be denied.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.B.M. and H.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

20 N.E.3d 174 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2014

“[T]he rule unequivocally requires the proponent of business records to establish, by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, that the records are regularly made.” J.L. v. … findings and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment.”

Allgire v. State

575 N.E.2d 600 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 21, 1991

Phipps was not sufficiently qualified to give expert testimony on that subject. Appellant then made a lengthy offer to prove and moved that the court qualify Dr. … Defense counsel also established that Dr.

Hubbard v. State

849 N.E.2d 1165 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2006

The right of privacy is not absolute, but is immune only from unjustified government interference. Carey v. Pop. Serv., Intern’l, 431 U.S. 678, 687 , 97 S.Ct. 2010 , 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). … Moreover, Hubbard has failed to establish that the Sexual Misconduct Statute is unconstitutional. Affirmed. BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur. 1 . Ind.Code § 35-44-1-5 ("the Sexual Misconduct Statute”). 2 .

Lynch v. Holy Name Church

133 Ind. App. 492 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1962

Appellant’s argument here on appeal is based solely upon the question of whether appellees are immune from liability as a charitable organization. … A close examination, of the above quoted amended complaint clearly demonstrates that there is an omission of one of the essential elements of actionable negligence.

J.B.E. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2020

shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2020, 10:00 am court except for the purpose of establishing … We cannot conclude her commitment to the DOC violates the privileges and immunities clause of our constitution.