Case law

Noel v. State

247 Ind. 426 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1966

The context in which the words in the indictment is used reveals clearly, and in our opinion, definitely its meaning. … This rule would not apply to a defendant himself unless he took the stand and waived his constitutional immunity against self-incrimination.

TORRES v. INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

For the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, at the outset, Ms. Themel defines qualified immunity too narrowly. See Estate of Perry v. … Under that facts-based standard, courts "often cannot tell from a complaint whether qualified immunity applies," and thus a motion to dismiss is "rarely" the time to decide qualified immunity. Roldan v.

Williams v. State

525 N.E.2d 1238 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1988

Williams characterizes the State’s alleged conduct as a grant of immunity. … Clearly, the instruction was erroneous, and it compromised the reliability of the jury’s recommendation.

American Surety Co. of New York v. State Ex Rel. Taber

102 Ind. App. 378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

It appears that Primich was the duly elected and qualified Justice of the Peace in Calumet Township in Lake County, Indiana, and that while there was a duly elected and qualified constable, for some reason or other (not clear … The evidence clearly established that the appellee Taber served as special constable and had not been paid the sums to which he was thereby entitled.

In Re JH

911 N.E.2d 69 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2009

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … By its own terms, In re E.E.S. characterizes itself as an anomaly in the established case law.

State v. Cooper

918 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2009

However, an individual seeking to vacate a guilty plea due to the lack of a factual basis must also demonstrate he was prejudiced by the failure to establish the factual basis. State v. … In addition, a review of Cooper's convie-tions clearly indicates he qualified as an habitual traffic violator on April 15, 1996.

Fox v. State

179 Ind. App. 267 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1979

It is well established that the question as to whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Reid v. *1169 State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1149 ; Niehaus v. … Clearly, one can be implicated without being specifically referred to.

Aaron v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

440 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1982

A temporary plan or method resulting in normal production would not qualify. … Clearly, the temporary methods employed by NIPSCO did not conform to its standards for the regular operation of its facilities.

Grenard v. State Employees' Appeals Commission

494 N.E.2d 341 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1986

The personnel system established by the Act is based upon "merit and scientific methods relating to the appointment, compensation, promotion, transfer, layoff, removal and discipline of employees and to other incidents of … alleging specifically wherein said order, decision, or determination is: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Jarrard v. Indiana Department of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 19, 2022

warned him to stop, is not clearly established to be a Constitutional violation.” … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity.

Tomsheck v. Town of Long Beach The

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 12, 2019

Tomsheck’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment (and at the very least, it was not clearly established that the speech was protected, as required to avoid qualified immunity), and (2) that he was not fired for … Tomsheck’s claims against the individuals, each of whom asserted a defense of qualified immunity.2 Though qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, once it is raised the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that

McIntosh v. Melroe Co.

729 N.E.2d 972 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 2000

Our standard of review of state constitutional claims is well established. … Whether the McIntoshes have standing as non-manufacturers, they clearly have standing as injured persons.

Lutz, Atty.-Gen. v. Arnold, Atty. Tr.

208 Ind. 480 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1935

Selection, on’ the contrary, is the determination of the taxable class, and unless impressed with such arbitrary methods of classification as violate the equal privileges and immunities provision of the Constitution, it is … In my opinion the appeal brief of the State Board of Tax Commissioners clearly establishes' that “rate,” as used in section 1, article X, was intended to mean and, reasonably construed, must mean “mode” or “rule” or “method

Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana, Inc., St. Mary Medical Center, Inc., and Rebecca Iwanus v. Elizabeth A. Miranda

120 N.E.3d 1090 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Mary’s employees, the designated evidence clearly demonstrates the statements were protected by qualified privilege. … “[I]n order to establish Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-PL-1458 | March 19, 2019 Page 31 of 36  negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish that the person making the

INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER OF NAACP v. Ballard

741 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2010

immunity. … The court therefore does not need to address the City’s qualified immunity argument. 11 . The plaintiffs' response brief states that plaintiffs Garza and Womock are not making Title VII claims. (Pis.’ Resp. at 11).

McMaster v. McMaster

681 N.E.2d 744 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1997

The conclusions are clearly erroneous when they are unsupported by the findings of fact. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. Dellaan v. … The trial court’s judgment to the contrary is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.

Horseman v. Keller

841 N.E.2d 164 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2006

Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. … Eligible voters may qualify to cast absentee ballots when faced with certain enumerated circumstances that make it impossible to vote at their polling places on Election Day.

Eitler v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center South-Bend Campus, Inc.

789 N.E.2d 497 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2003

Moreover, a plaintiff must establish the basic elements of defamation: (1) a communication with a defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. Id. … In this context, as to the defamation claim the information was clearly evaluative in nature and constituted the subjective opinion of the evaluator.

Steven A. Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc., a/k/a Congregation Beth Shalom, Paul Eisenberg, Judith Rose, Sarah Wasserman, Lynne Foster Shifriss, and Roberta "Didi" Kerler

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

Code §§ 31-33-6 grants civil immunity to any individual who makes a report of child abuse and does not restrict immunity to those who make a report to DCS. … Accordingly, Beth Shalom established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ott v. AlliedSignal, Inc.

827 N.E.2d 1144 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2005

Frank's affidavit established that the disease process begins when an individual is first exposed to friable asbestos. … In some cases, the body's immune system suppresses the damaging effect of the fibers.