Case law

BALIGA v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2022

Moreover, Defendants offer no authority to support their contention that actions that are "inextricably tied" to actions that might qualify for immunity similarly qualify for immunity. … We therefore begin with the question whether the law clearly established that [the plaintiff] had a property interest . . . .").

Weston v. Buckley

677 N.E.2d 1089 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1997

Whether the trial court erred in determining that Buckley’s paintless dent removal process qualified as a trade secret. II. … Prior to establishing the business, Buckley invested a substantial amount of time and effort in investigating the various PDR processes and franchise opportunities.

State v. Person

699 N.E.2d 783 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1998

A second Speedway police officer testified that Person admitted he had obtained the money from a “pea-shake house,” apparently a gambling establishment. … We are not persuaded that our well-established precedent immunizing these governmental entities from the assessment of punitive attorney’s fees should be reversed when there is no specific statutory provision authorizing

State Ex Rel. Rose v. Worden, Special Judge

216 Ind. 83 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1939

He afterwards qualified and assumed jurisdiction over said cause. … Worden, qualified on March 3, 1939, and set the case for trial for April 3, 1939.

United States v. Aczel

219 F. 917 · District Court, D. Indiana · Feb 1, 1915

electors, and duly qualified to act as poll clerks at said election. … This is clearly and amply set forth in Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 [4 Sup. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274 ], in which this court, speaking by Mr.

Stone v. Daviess County Division of Children & Family Services

656 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1995

We will not set aside the findings and judgment of the trial court unless clearly erroneous. … s deposition testimony renders .the trial court's judgment clearly erroneous. Therefore, we find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. SHARPNACK, C.J., and BARTEAU, J., concur. .

Miles v. Anton

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2024

(3) Qualified Immunity Finally, Ms. Anton argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … 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 person

Patterson v. State

958 N.E.2d 478 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2011

One such exception was established in Terry v. … For all of these reasons, we conclude that the State sufficiently established that Officer Dotson was qualified to recognize the odor of burnt marijuana.

Wisniewski v. Bennett

693 N.E.2d 1341 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

This is a summary judgment action involving the ability of a claimant to gain access to the Patient’s Compensation Fund (Fund) established by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. … In that case the literal terms of the settlement document clearly showed that the claimant entered a written agreement with a non-qualified heath care provider.

Richard Prancik, b/n/f, Renee Prancik v. Oak Hill United School Corporation

997 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2013

Under these circumstances, the court held that “school personnel here clearly exercised ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the children under their authority.” … The majority of the opinion addressed whether the school enjoyed immunity from the student’s claims under the Indiana Torts Claim Act, with the court holding that it did not. Id. at 484.

Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COM'N

827 N.E.2d 162 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2005

In such a situation, we give the trial court's factual findings and judgment deference, and we will reverse only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. … in this case, Indiana Downs is contesting an order because the IHRC's action not only has retrospective application, but also it is directed specifically at Indiana Downs and Hoosier Parks as the only two entities that qualified

SCHEPP v. Evansville Television, Inc.

236 Ind. 472 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1957

He thereupon gave bond and qualified as required by law. … Felker also gave bond and qualified as required by the law under which he claimed to act, appointed deputies, and proceeded to take steps to enforce the oil inspection law.

VanDalsen v. Roswarksi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2023

A related principle is the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. . . .

Kelly Scott Thomas v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2012

Here, when Orue testified, her immunity agreement with the State was disclosed to the jury. … When asked if she had any reason to think she would receive anything other than immunity in exchange for testifying, she replied that she did not.

State ex rel. Clawson v. Bell

169 Ind. 61 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1907

Under the facts the relator falls far short of establishing any legal right to or interest in the office. … Clute was declared elected, and, having qualified as required by law, entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Renfrow

475 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 1979

Damages It is settled case law that school officials possess a qualified immunity with respect to acts performed within the course of their duties. Wood v. … The record here clearly discloses several fatal failures of the plaintiff to meet the elementary requirements of Rule 23.

COMBS v. ELIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 2025

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he [or she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct."

Garcia v. State

271 Ind. 510 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1979

The result would be the same under the Draft if the only co-conspirator established a defense of renunciation under Section 5.03(6). … Clearly “any reason,” as recited therein, includes the absence of criminal culpability on the part of a co-conspirator — including a sole co-conspirator.

Hoy v. State, ex rel. Buchanan

168 Ind. 506 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1907

But where the relator holds a prima facie and uncontested title to the office, or his title has been adjudicated upon and finally established by a competent tribunal, a writ of mandate may be issued to put him in possession … within the time allowed by the indemnity act, which, among other things, granted immunity for the omission to take the Lord’s Supper within the time prescribed. 5. 6. 7.

Jones v. Bowman

694 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1988

Jones argues the Sheriff’s neglect to conform his practices to clearly established legal guidelines constitutes reckless or callous indifference to her constitutional rights. … Under Indiana law, judges are immune for actions taken in the exercise of a judicial function, and the Tort Claims Act did not abolish that immunity. Cato v. Mayes, 270 Ind. 653 , 388 N.E.2d 530, 532 (1979).