Case law

Winona Memorial Foundation of Indianapolis v. Lomax

465 N.E.2d 731 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1984

On that date, Winona was qualified as a health care provider within the meaning of the Medical Malpractice Act, IND.CODE 16-9.5-2-1. … the legislature intended to overrule the established law.

Linden v. Health Care 2000, Inc.

809 N.E.2d 929 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2004

Denial of Appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment In their original brief, Appellants contend that Appellees have failed to establish that they are entitled to immunity under the Act and that therefore we "should … It is not enough for Appellants to argue that Appel-lees are not entitled to immunity under the Act and are therefore not entitled to summary judgment; Appellants must also establish as a matter of law with respect to each

State Ex Rel. Buttz v. Marion Circuit Court

225 Ind. 7 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1947

shall serve for two years or until their successors shall have been appointed and qualified. … As such duty to enter said so-called judgment was clearly mandatory, under the terms of the special improvement statute, it was a ministerial act.

John Crouch v. State of Indiana, Britni Saunders

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2020

We cannot say that this statute clearly evinces or unequivocally expresses the legislature’s intention to waive the State’s sovereign immunity under these circumstances. … evince” or “unequivocally express” its intention to waive State immunity for whistleblower claims). 4 [22] Even assuming the legislature expressed such an intent or that the State or Saunders qualifies

Terre Haute Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Basden

524 N.E.2d 1306 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1988

This section clearly and unambiguously prohibits the disclosure of the determinations of, and communications to a peer review committee, subject to specified exceptions. … Basden has not established a prima fa-cie showing of fraud. No misrepresentation of fact by THRH or its peer review committee has been shown to exist.

Cameron v. Internal Revenue Service

593 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 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.

Tilley v. Roberson

725 N.E.2d 150 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2000

Once Tilley qualified for Social Security Disability benefits and retired under her Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) plan, she no longer qualified to receive a percentage of her former salary through her disability … Code tit. 31, r. 3-1-12 on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Matter of Mann

270 Ind. 358 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1979

The record in this case establishes that the Respondent testified in a criminal case tried in Marion Criminal Court, Division 4, such testimony being given under a grant of immunity pursuant to the terms of I.C. 35-6-3-1, … Unless the court finds that the issuance of the order would be clearly contrary to public interest, the witness shall comply with the order of the court.

Johnson v. State

262 Ind. 516 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1974

Clearly, a baby could sleep peacefully as the kidnapper carried him away. … Neither do we consider that the clothing can qualify as newly discovered evidence within the meaning of that term in TR. 59(A) (6).

Brothers of Holy Cross, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

878 N.E.2d 548 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 19, 2007

In order to meet that burden, the taxpayer must have submitted probative evidence, during the administrative hearing, sufficient to establish that its property qualifies for a tax exemption. 5 See id. at 907-08 (footnote … While BHC’s evidence clearly explains what services and activities were available to the Village’s residents in 2003-2005, the evidence lacks probative value with respect to the year at issue because it fails to establish

Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis

717 N.E.2d 1218 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1999

This is clearly not applicable to the case before us. … However, the federal court clearly and necessarily determined in resolving Men-denhall’s civil rights claim that Goldsmith was acting as an agent of the State.

Brook v. Prentice

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2025

A law enforcement officer enjoys qualified immunity. … In addition, qualified immunity would apply because “[m]any decisions hold that there is no clearly established rule forbidding a clean takedown to end mild resistance.” Johnson, 944 F.3d at 969 (citing cases). Ms.

Vandam Estate v. Mid-America Sound

25 N.E.3d 165 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2015

A reviewing court should nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary. Id. 1. Open Courts Ind. Const. art. … The State’s consent to be sued, as represented by the ITCA, therefore is not uniformly applied and available to all qualified claimants, as required by Collins. McCall is distinguishable.

Taylor Routh v. Bernard Kappe

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 2026

[12] The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted the planning/operational test for determining what acts qualify for discretionary function immunity under the ITCA. Peavler v. … by extending immunity to the act in question.”

Rubeck v. Sheriff of Wabash County

824 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 27, 1993

Qualified Immunity The defendants invite this court to bottom a decision here on qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). See also Rakovich v. … and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?’ ” Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1210 (quoting Wade v. Hegner, 804 F.2d 67 [,] 70 (7th Cir.1986)).

Elmore v. Overton

104 Ind. 548 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1886

The granting of a license, and the issuing of a license, are clearly convertible terms within the meaning of section 4425 of the existing statutes of the State, herein above set out. … In the next place, the accuracy of all the memorandums made or entered upon these papers was not sufficiently established by preliminary evidence to entitle them to be put in evidence in their entirety.

Mayes v. City of Hammond, In

442 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2006

Myszak agrees in his reply brief that he is not entitled to absolute immunity. %. Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold. … Similarly, under the qualified immunity analysis, having found that the first prong was not met, the Court need not proceed to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time. 3.

Stath v. Williams

174 Ind. App. 369 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1977

Based on these facts appellants first question the coroner’s jurisdiction asserting that the death of Robert Stath was so clearly accidental as to preclude any suspicion of criminal conduct therefore rendering the performance … by the American board of pathology for certification or a physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine in Indiana acting under the direction of such qualified physician to perform such autopsy, * * This clearly

League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita

929 N.E.2d 758 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2010

No photo identification is required in order to register to vote, and the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. … The voter qualifications established in Section 2 of Article 2 relate to citizenship, age, and residency.

Braaksma v. Wells Community Hospital

98 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 2000

The ADEA’s purported abrogation of the States’ sovereign immunity is accordingly invalid. Braaksma concedes that the ADEA cannot be held to have abrogated a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Braaksma thus concludes that the Hospital is not akin to an arm of the state and is, at most, an arm of the county, and it is well established that counties do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. Doyle at 280.