Case law

JOHNSON v. DENNICK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Analysis of the qualified immunity defense requires a consideration of: (1) whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and (2) whether the rights were clearly established at the time. Saucier v.

Tipton County Health Care Foundation, Inc. v. Tipton County Assessor

961 N.E.2d 1048 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 16, 2012

will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … To meet its burden, the taxpayer must have made a prima facie case 2 at the Indiana Board hearing by submitting probative evidence 3 sufficient to show its property qualifies for exemption.

State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Brand, Trustee

214 Ind. 347 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1937

"No rule of construction is more firmly established than this: that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matters of procedure … But the court clearly recognized the legal soundness of the rule that tenure rights are vested and are immune from legislative impairment. The opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State ex rel. O'Neil v.

Hoovler v. State

689 N.E.2d 738 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1997

All doubts are resolved against a challenger who must overcome that presumption by “clearly demonstrating the provision to be invalid.” Hoovler I, 668 N.E.2d at 1232 . I. … ARTICLE I, SECTION 23: EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which

Randy L. Thornton v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Corrections, Marion County, Indiana, Matthew Pietrzak, Stephanie Buttz, Eric Lee, Dianna Johnson (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … governmental employees: A lawsuit filed against an employee personally must allege that an act or omission of the employee that causes a loss is: (1) criminal; (2) clearly

Burkett v. State

691 N.E.2d 1241 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1998

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. … Rather, possible means by which reliability may be established include judicial notice or sufficient foundation to convince the trial court that the relevant scientific principles are reliable. Id. at 1290 .

State Ex Rel. Youngblood v. Warrick Circuit Court

208 Ind. 594 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1935

Gray established himself in a room in the courthouse, and announced that he was assuming jurisdiction of the cause as special judge. … To clearly state the position is to demonstrate that it is untenable.

Lincoln National Bank v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division

446 N.E.2d 1337 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1983

The qualifying language, "with respect to which," broadens the scope of a particular week's deductible pension income to include more than merely the payments actually received. … to the experience account of the same employer who has contributed to the pension fund established for and on behalf of such individual.

Lyle v. State ex rel. Smith

172 Ind. 502 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1909

The statute is clearly remedial and administrative in character, and should receive a liberal and reasonable construction. State, ex rel., v. Schmetzer (1901), 156 Ind. 528 . … It shows two things: (1) That the lawmakers did not intend to bestow special priv *508 ileges and immunities upon the patrons and children of abandoned districts; (2) that, in the legislative judgment, two miles in the one

State v. Richcreek

167 Ind. 217 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 29, 1906

The quasi-public nature of the banking business, and the intimate relation which it bears to the fiscal affairs of the people and the revenues of the State, clearly bring it within the domain of the internal police power, … The insistence that the act grants special privileges and immunities is equally untenable.

MOORE v. DAVIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2023

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless [she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Dismissal of a claim based on qualified immunity is only appropriate where "the plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not 'state a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" Hanson v.

Hammond

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2026

Qualified Immunity Here again, the Court largely agrees with the standard cited by Defendant, that to ascertain whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified … immunity from civil liability in a § 1983 excessive force claim, the Court must evaluate: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Posey County v. Chamness

438 N.E.2d 1041 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1982

We also agree that there is no established or set method of impeaching a witness. … Posey asserts that the verdict is clearly excessive in light of the small amount of special damages: $324 in hospital and doctor bills and $581 for treatment by a clinical psychologist.

Norman A. Boerger Insurance, Inc. v. Indiana Employment Security Board

158 Ind. App. 154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1973

Boerger’s services qualify as employment under the Employment Security Act? 1 Our opinion concludes that Norman A. Boerger Insurance, Inc. did not carry its burden of proof and establish by the evidence that Norman A. … The manner of remuneration coupled with the factual independence from control clearly established him as an independent contractor. None of the evidence or reasonable inferences available in News Publishing Co. V.

United States v. Maxey & Co., Pc

956 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 1997

First, the court finds that the Government has sufficiently established that the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. … However, the Eighth Circuit held that, at the grand jury stage, such issues are clearly premature. Id.

Stewart v. Gallagher

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2023

Qualified immunity, which protects government officials from damages liability, “attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Turning to the second element of qualified immunity, a constitutional right is “clearly established” when “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Neff v. Hmurovich

261 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2003

Hmurovich and Vaughn are not entitled to qualified immunity. 6 ■ Nevertheless, even after making these assumptions in Mr. Neffs favor, we conclude that Mr. … If the answer to the first question is yes, we inquire whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hope v.

Security Trust Corp. v. Estate of Fisher Ex Rel. Roy

797 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2003

We then analyzed the viatical settlement contract under the test established in Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946). Id. at 1195. … "Such an amendment raises the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the amendment was passed in order to express the original intent more clearly." Id.

Sims v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

730 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2000

All doubts are resolved against a challenger who must over *235 come that presumption by “clearly demonstrating the provision to be invalid.” Id. … In so doing, the court noted that its prior holdings did not establish a fundamental right of access to the courts.

Epps v. State

267 Ind. 177 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1977

Caine was not qualified to give expert testimony. … This testimony clearly established Sgt. Caine’s professional qualifications. *182 V.