Case law

Tun Ex Rel. Tun v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

326 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 2004

they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established.”

Yerkes v. Heartland Career Center

661 N.E.2d 558 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 1995

corporation, or *561 (x) board or commission of one (1) of the entities listed in subdivisions (1) through (9); Yerkes argues that although Heartland is a school, it is not a school corporation and, thus, that Heartland does not qualify … However, Heartland is a vocational school established pursuant to statutory authority granted only to school corporations.

Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

424 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1981

Pape (1961), 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 , which established the immunity of municipalities from § 1983. … The finding of a discriminatory practice was clearly based on facts that either appeared on the record or could reasonably be inferred from the record.

Rebolledo v. Eden

12 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where qualified immunity is asserted as the basis for summary judgment, the Court must accept the plaintiffs version of the facts and determine whether they “make out a violation of clearly established law.” Huff v.

Brosamer v. Mark

561 N.E.2d 767 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1990

Pension plans qualified under ERISA receive preferential federal tax treatment, and the relevant portion of the Internal Revenue Code echoes ERISA by providing: "A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under this section … Although this passage is clearly dicta, it is consistent with the decision in Tenneco and with ERISA's legislative history.

Arnold v. City of Fort Wayne

210 F. Supp. 3d 1055 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. … As such, qualified immunity applies if a reasonable officer could have believed the stop of Arnold’s vehicle to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information that the officers possessed. Id.

Indiana Department of Correction v. Stagg

556 N.E.2d 1338 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1990

DECISION The trial court made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law which can only be set aside if they are clearly erroncous. … Additionally, there is no requirement of a showing of good faith in order to qualify for the immunity. First, LC. § 34-4-16.5-8(7) does not restrict the provision to "law enforcement officers".

Lock v. Jenkins

464 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 1978

While the Federal courts will intervene to protect clearly established constitutional rights, Little v. … The qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be availing to all of the named defendants because the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were not clearly established at the

Kinder v. Doe

540 N.E.2d 111 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1989

In this case the records are clearly necessary for the resolution of an issue pending before the court-whether the reporter is not immune from civil lability because the report was made maliciously or in bad faith. … In order to encourage such reports the legislature had provided for limited confidentiality and qualified immunity for reporters.

Cowgill v. City of Marion

127 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Sledd v. … and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?” Kernats v. O’Sullivan, 35 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir.1994).

Shroyer v. United States

904 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2012

immunity and are “shielded 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 known.” … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Benton v. City of Oakland City

721 N.E.2d 224 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1999

First, the cases do not clearly define concepts referred to as a governmental unit’s “public duty” and its “private duty.” … And we continue to believe that the City of Rome test is appropriate for determining whether a governmental unit qualifies for immunity for failure to dispatch emergency services (but only for that purpose).

Kissinger v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch.

293 F. Supp. 3d 796 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2018

Qualified Immunity for the Individual Defendants Whether government officials enjoy qualified immunity involves a two-part inquiry. … Bryan , 523 F.3d 789 , 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (a plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish "that the law concerning the plaintiff's asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged

Irwin v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA

693 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2010

Their assertion of qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two step analysis to determine if the circumstances were such that qualified immunity applies. … Evans are not entitled to qualified immunity. Conclusion Based on the admissible evidence of record, Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion (Docket #33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Row v. Holt

834 N.E.2d 1074 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2005

Whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity "Government officials are shielded 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

Perry v. Whitley County 4-H Clubs Inc.

931 N.E.2d 933 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2010

At all entrances to the Horse Barn, the 4-H Club had posted "Equine Activity warning signs" that were "clearly visible." Id. at 18-19 (affidavit of Bill Leeuw, 4-H Club's President of the Board). … Perry does not dispute that the 4-H Club qualifies as an equine activity sponsor. . In Anderson v.

Sarlls, City Clerk v. State, Ex Rel.

201 Ind. 88 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1929

Following the inundation of Galveston, Texas, by a tidal wave in 1900, a commission plan of government was established there to speed up the work of rehabilitation. … A “Home-Rule Amendment” to the Colorado Constitution was adopted in 1912, under which the commission-form of government was established in cities. See People v. Prevost (1913), 55 Colo. 199 , 134 Pac. 129 . 6 Brown v.

Sturrup v. Mahan

261 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1974

The State has failed to establish a compelling State interest and the bylaws’ necessary relation to the furtherance of that interest. … The Shapiro and Dunn cases can clearly be distinguished from the case at bar.

Ice v. STATE EX REL. INDIANA STATE BOARD, ETC.

240 Ind. 82 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1959

"It is established law that an act of the Legislature can not be annulled by the judiciary in any respect unless it clearly contravenes some provision of the Constitution. … Further appellant contends that he has been discriminated against in that he has not been extended the same privileges and immunities as other classes of citizens, such as dentists or medical technicians, contrary to Art.

Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak

591 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 1984

The foregoing decision with respect to immunity was written at a time when the state of the law with respect to qualified immunity permitted the court to consider both an objective and subjective aspect with respect to the … The change that Harlow brought to the law does not convince this court that Judge McNagny’s decision with respect to qualified immunity in this case was incorrect.