Case law

BARNHOUSE v. CITY OF MUNCIE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2020

Concerning qualified immunity, Barnhouse argues that, in 1992, it was clearly established that identification procedures violate due process if they are unduly suggestive—see Manson v. … established," so qualified immunity would protect the defendant from such a claim.

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.

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSP. & INS. CO. v. White

775 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2002

He saw no difference in conducting a qualified safety inspection in any of the states he was licensed in, because the National Board of Inspection Code establishes guidelines and procedures for the safe inspection of boilers … Our review of the evidence as a whole shows that Nasatka clearly performed an inspection for state certification purposes and that a copy of his report was made available to Hartford's underwriting department.

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.

Blair v. U.S. Treasury Department

596 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 19, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoys only a qualified immunity, so that he could be liable individually if he knows or should have known that he is acting outside the law. Id. at 506-07 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v.

Babinchak v. Town of Chesterton

598 N.E.2d 1099 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1992

Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) places the burden on the movant to establish the propriety of granting summary judgment. … Accordingly, Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-3 provides 17 separate and distinct instances where governmental immunity is available. It is necessary for Chesterton to qualify for only one category in order for immunity to attach.

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.

Board of Com'rs v. Kokomo City Plan Com'n

263 Ind. 282 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975

It established also that the County had enacted a master plan. … The State's Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. 1, § 23, refers only to "citizens."

Evans v. Evans

818 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

As interpreted by the Seventh Circuit, “a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established … Wadman, 595 F.Supp. 188, 288 (C.D.Utah 1982), aff'd 745 F.2d 606 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 1396 , 84 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985) (school superintendent entitled to qualified immunity for initiating prosecution

St. John Town Board v. Lambert

725 N.E.2d 507 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2000

In the past, Indiana appellate courts established several legal principles to assist in deciphering whether governmental units were immune from tort liability under the common law. … Indiana statute grants the authority to establish streets to municipalities. Ind. Code § 36-9-2-5 .

Tucker v. Firks

731 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 1989

As the defendants have noted, the Supreme Court has recognized that state officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … This *1356 court, however, finds that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Snyder v. Internal Revenue Service

596 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoyed only a qualified immunity, so that he could be liable individually if he knows or should have known that he is acting outside the law. Id. at 506-07 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. County of Lake

399 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 20, 1975

Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), clearly dispelled any doubts that the principle of judicial immunity extended to actions brought under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. Citing Bradley v. … from having his conduct challenged — in the form of a preventive action — is well established. . . .

W.S.K. v. M.H.S.B.

922 N.E.2d 671 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 2010

W.S.K. clearly established the first element-he is African-American. The second element-W.S.K.'s qualifications-was the subject of discussion at oral argument. … Therefore, W.S.K. *689 did not establish that he was qualified for privileges at M.H.S.B.

Flowers v. Carson

917 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a .reasonable person … We therefore find that political affiliation is not an appropriate requirement for the position of Deputy Constable, and that because this was clearly established in 1993, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity

T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corp.

807 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2011

were not clearly established. … I conclude that Principal Couch is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because, though mistaken, his judgment could reasonably have been thought to be consistent with the students’ rights, which were not clearly established

Young v. Internal Revenue Service

596 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 1984

If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v. … Kerner, this complaint simply does not state a claim of exceeding official authority sufficient to call the qualified immunity into question.

Cornell v. Hamilton

791 N.E.2d 214 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2003

She raises the following issue for review: Whether the State’s funeral leave policy, under which an employee may be granted funeral leave upon the death of a qualified relative, the death of a spouse’s qualified relative, … However, under the alternate classification scheme identified in Martin , she was clearly a member of the burdened class, and the court's analysis proceeded from this premise.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bathe

715 N.E.2d 954 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1999

The protection of a qualified privilege may be lost by the manner of its exercise, although belief in the truth of the charge exists.” Boone v. … We believe that there are certain situations in which a merchant’s actions clearly fall within the immunity granted by the statute.

Sanders v. Stewart

157 Ind. App. 74 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1973

An employer could report anything, whether true or not, with any kind of intent, including malicious, and be immune from libel actions. … If facts showing an absolute privilege are established, malice is conclusively rebutted; but, if the occasion shown is one of qualified privilege merely, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and the plaintiff