Case law

Nowicki v. Cannon Steel Erection Co.

711 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1999

In light of the extent of Custom's control of Battreall's work at the Custom job site, we cannot say the trial court finding that Custom established Battreall's work boundaries was clearly erroneous. … , would clearly support a contrary conclusion.

McKinney v. Public Service Co. of Indiana

597 N.E.2d 1001 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1992

Additionally, to establish a joint venture, there must be a pecuniary attribute in the common purpose of the trip. Lafayette, 440 N.E.2d 759 . … Obviously, neither of these statutes clothe PSI with immunity under the present cir cumstances.

Hines Ex Rel. Hines v. Caston School Corp.

651 N.E.2d 330 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1995

As well said by Judge Cooley, 'The right to one's person may be said to be the right of complete immunity: to be let alone.! [Union Pacific Railway Company v. … We note that the Hineses stipulated at trial that they do not seek to establish that Jimmy's wearing of an earring is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Greening v. State

198 Ind. 706 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1926

The facts stated in the affida- *714 vit properly pleaded might show another crime; but same is immaterial as the allegations therein establish the crime attempted to be charged. … Any words that express this idea or from which it can be clearly *718 inferred will be sufficient.

Walker v. Ritchey

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2022

Lastly, Officer Ritchey argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established that hitting an inmate’s hand while holding an object that ultimately travels less than an inch to make contact … Thus, Officer Ritchey cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity.

Fadell v. State

450 N.E.2d 109 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1983

Other contradictions in Gligor's testimony pointed out by Fadell likewise fail to establish any perjury. Fadell is not entitled to reversal on this basis. *115 IL. … The title "Waiver of Immunity" might, by some stretch of the imagination, have misled jurors.

Everett Powell v. Indiana Real Estate Commission (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2020

Injunctive relief should only be granted in the rare instances in which the law and the facts are clearly within the moving party’s favor. Id. … Powell has not established an inexcusable delay. IREC did not discover the full extent of Powell’s misconduct until he was disbarred in 2017.

Leonard v. State

573 N.E.2d 463 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1991

Obviously, his background, experience, and conduct do not clearly indicate a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. … We will not burden this opinion with a discussion of the "recognized exceptions" in which cases on collateral review qualify for the retrospective application of federal appellate decisions.

Davis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2026

“In determining whether actions taken by government officials enjoy absolute immunity or qualified immunity, the Supreme Court applies a ‘functional approach . . . which looks to the nature of the function performed, … “In contrast, prosecutors acting in the role of administrator or investigator are entitled only to qualified immunity.” Jones, 998 F.3d at 787.

Butrum v. Roman

803 N.E.2d 1139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2004

A child may not qualify for emancipation under one of the subsections yet may meet the requirements for emancipation under another. See Borders, 800 N.E.2d at 591 . … The trial court's finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous.

Judy Chang v. Purdue University, The Trustees of Purdue University Dr. France A. Cordova, President of Purdue University (in her official capacity)

985 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2013

Rather, immunity from suit under § 1983 is “predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it,” Imbler v. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Turner v. Boy Scouts of America

856 N.E.2d 106 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2006

See Cortez, 827 N.E.2d at 1234 (plaintiff has burden of establishing that protection of qualified privilege was lost because defendant abused privilege). … He also conceded that he did nothing to confirm the credibility (or lack thereof) of Turner's accusers, one of whom was apparently embroiled in a custody battle with Turner. 4 Clearly, Vollmer's com *115 munications about

State of Indiana v. Chad Bryant

4 N.E.3d 808 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2014

A trial court has abused its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. … As we stated above, the Supreme Court clearly stated in Stewart that: “a person who has been judged an HTV remains in that status until the BMV rescinds its designation[] and [] is not free to disregard this administrative

Indiana State Board of Education v. Brownsburg Community School Corp.

865 N.E.2d 660 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2007

, as long as the student is qualified to participate in the class. … In essence, the ISBE asserts “that the trial court violated the well established rule that a remand to the agency is ordinarily the sole remedy, even where the agency has acted contrary to law.” Appellant’s Br. p. 25.

HUMPHREY v. CITY OF ANDERSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) he did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or (2) the par- ticular right at issue was not clearly established.

Moritz v. State

465 N.E.2d 748 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1984

The refused question was purely conjectural, and Trimpe admitted he was testifying in exchange for immunity. … Clearly orders (f), (g) and (h) apply to Counts 5 and 6, for which Moritz was found not guilty. We will confine the remainder of our discussion to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Senn v. State

766 N.E.2d 1190 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2002

Clearly, the purpose of this bill was to clarify, not change, our decision in Dish roon. Thus, I believe Palmer, to the extent that it disagrees with our holding in Dishroon, is incorrect. … State, 756 N.E.2d 581, 583 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, this court held: In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, our supreme court has established a two-part test.

Wallace v. Meadow Acres Manufactured Housing, Inc.

730 N.E.2d 809 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2000

Godish was not qualified to render ultimate expert opinions on medical causation. … Godish admits that he is unable to identify any peer-reviewed articles or journal articles reporting an established half-life or definite decay rate for formaldehyde. 36. Dr.

Parsons v. Bourff

739 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 1989

Will clearly makes such a belief misplaced. Will held that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. … Moreover, the defendant makes no argument that any type of immunity protects her from suit in her individual capacity.

Randall v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORP.

742 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2010

Because Weimer had three fewer years of seniority with the company and thus less direct experience compared to her, Randall viewed Weimer as clearly less qualified for the position. … “unless those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue.”