Case law

SMITH v. CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2023

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 person would have … established" at the time of Defendants' challenged acts.

Culp v. Reed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2021

“A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes where [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that 7 … With respect to qualified immunity, it is clearly established that an officer cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to execute an arrest. Phillips v. Cmty. Ins. Corp., 678 F.3d 513, 529-30 (7th Cir. 2012).

Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad v. Board of Commissioners

192 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1922

to be graded, drained and paved” any such new highway, or “to .cause to be straightened, graded, drained and improved” any such highway already established, if such action was properly asked by fifty or more qualified petitioners … And that neither the viewers nor the board of commissioners has any power to lay nut, establish or construct any improvement except as petitioned for by a sufficient number of properly qualified freeholders who are voters

Osolo Township v. Elkhart Maple Lane Associates L.P.

789 N.E.2d 109 · Indiana Tax Court · May 30, 2003

will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-eretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Even though the wooded areas clearly contribute to the appeal of the buildings, this fact alone does not render the land necessary support land....

Clark v. United States

206 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2002

Congress has established a clear plan of recovery for those individuals whose United States Treasury check has been either stolen or lost without any fault by the claimant. See 31 U.S.C. § 3343 . … Under section 7433, the statutory language clearly provides that this court does have jurisdiction over such a claim. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (a).

Community Hospitals of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Neuro Division

594 N.E.2d 448 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1992

The Quality Assurance Council therefore qualifies as a "peer review committee" under the statute. All communications to a peer review committee shall be privileged communications. … IC. 84-4-12.6-2(a) The party which seeks to avoid discovery has the burden to establish the essential elements of the privilege being invoked. Ray v. St.

Bradley v. Work

916 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 1996

The Constitutional claims raised by the plaintiffs may be enforced through § 1983, which establishes a remedy for any person who has been deprived of his or her “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution … This Court has already noted that this ''hybrid” system does not fall clearly into either category of appointed judge, or popularly elected judge. See Bradley v. Indiana State Elec.

Brown v. Krueger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2023

The district court’s decision was also affirmed on alternate grounds—that the AUSA was entitled to absolute immunity and the FBI Agent was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 565–69. … Thus, even if Brown had alleged a viable Bivens claim against Agent Chonowski, based on the facts available in the record, he would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Bates v. City of Ft. Wayne, Ind.

591 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 1983

Qualified good faith immunity is available to police officers acting in their official capacities. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). See also Procunier v. … If the city employees are found not liable on grounds other than their qualified immunities, then the city also cannot be held liable.

Talley v. Review Bd., Emp. SEC. Div.

119 Ind. App. 680 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1949

The legislature clearly intended that one who is receiving a pension from a fund contributed to by his employer, should not at once be eligible to receive unemployment compensation, if such would be chargeable to the experience … account of the same employer who has contributed to the pension fund established for and on behalf of such individual.

Rocca v. Southern Hills Counselling Center, Inc.

671 N.E.2d 913 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1996

Thus, public policy supports the recognition of an exception to the physician-patient privilege despite the absence of language to that effect in the statute which established the privilege. … An abrogation of the common law will be implied where a statute is enacted which undertakes to cover the entire subject treated and was clearly designed as a substitute for the common law or where the two laws are so repugnant

IN High School Athletic Assoc. v. Jason Carlberg

Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1998

(footnote: 6) It is clearly established that decisions of the IHSAA with respect to student-athletes constitute “state action” for purposes of federal and state constitutional review under the Equal Protection and the Privileges … and Immunities Clauses of the federal and state constitutions.

Leverett v. City of Indianapolis

51 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 19, 1999

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW To qualify for protection under the ADA, Plaintiff must first establish that he is “a qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 . … Assuming Leverett’s left ear hearing,loss constitutes a “disability” under the Act, Plaintiff must still establish that he is a “qualified individual.” See Koshinski v.

Matter of Gifford

93 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 1988

This holding “is consistent with the well established principle that the bankruptcy estate inures to whatever rights the debtor had at the time the petition was filed.” … The principle is now so firmly established, however, that it must be followed and applied.

Marvin v. St. Joseph County Sheriff Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 2022

violation, the Defendant officers are still entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established. 1. … Whether the Right was “Clearly Established” The Court now considers the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred

Gersh Zavodnik v. Irene Harper

17 N.E.3d 259 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 30, 2014

 Require the litigant to state clearly and concisely at the beginning of a motion the relief requested. … A judge's exposure to evidence through judicial sources is generally insufficient to establish bias. The fact that a litigant has appeared before a judge in prior cases does not establish bias or prejudice.

Indiana v. Internal Revenue Service

38 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 12, 2014

. § 36B; one of them is that the individual has enrolled in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) (defining “coverage month” for … This assumption is clearly incorrect—Kentucky has a State Exchange, and there are undoubtedly Kentucky residents who work for Indiana employers.

Auto Owners (Mutual) Insurance v. Stanley

262 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1967

Clearly Foster failed in his responsibility. … This decision, based as it is upon ordinary legal principles, falls well within the scope of established Indiana policy.

Pickett v. Kolb

142 Ind. App. 78 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1967

On the basis I don’t think there is enough qualification, qualifying evidence here to show that this man is qualified at the present time to give an estimate of the speed when there are skid marks; there are so many variable … It has been held by the Supreme Court of Indiana that the exclusion of evidence is harmless where the facts sought to be established by such evidence were established by other evidence. Boxell v. Bright Nat.

C.S. v. Couch

843 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2011

Even if Miranda did apply to C.S.’s situation, and to the extent that they were acting as "government officials” (and not as private citizens), the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity as C.S.’s right to Miranda … As such, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to give such a warning (if it was required). . Defendants also argue that they are entitled to immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.