Case law

Hamed v. Pfeifer

647 N.E.2d 669 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1995

The federal court's ruling clearly permitted Pfeifer to use the tape recording at trial in an attempt to prove General Accident's defense, albeit unsuccessful, of fraud. … Gastineau (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 1020 , 1024 trans. denied (qualified privilege); Boydston v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 318, 321 (same).

Indiana Board of Pharmacy v. Paul J Elmer

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2023

[11] Like judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity is absolute. Melton, 156 N.E.3d at 652–53. … Elmer has failed to establish that the Board members acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction. B.

Milan Jurich, Personal Representative of the Estate of Rade Jurich, and Rajna Jurich v. Indiana Department of Transportation

126 N.E.3d 846 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2019

In determining what acts qualify for discretionary function immunity under the ITCA, our Supreme Court has adopted the planning- operational test. Peavler v. … The party seeking immunity has the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the provisions of the ITCA. Id.

Mott v. Indiana

793 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 8, 1991

Certainly, these defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity, since none of the constitutional rights that this plaintiff is arguing for are clearly established under Harlow v. … This qualified immunity decision is also specifically supported by McKinney, 924 F.2d at 1509 .

Board of County Commissioners v. Arick

477 N.E.2d 112 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1985

In addition, they testified that water could cause the problem, and other testimony established that it had been raining that day. … Immunity from liability.

CASSEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2026

Qualified immunity standard "Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law." Zorn v. … Officer Wassberg argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on any excessive force claim. Dkt. 61 at 15–17. The Court elects to begin with the "clearly established law" prong of qualified immunity.

Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.

754 N.E.2d 958 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2001

Because the designated evidence does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of the detention, we cannot determine whether the Shoplifting Detention Act renders Finlay and Ayres immune for false imprisonment. … Finlay and Ayres also seek immunity under a qualified privilege of common interest, which protects "communications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in

Biddle v. City of Fort Wayne

591 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1984

Qualified Good Faith Immunity of Individual Defendants. … The individual defendants complied with all the clearly established rights of which they would have known. The individual defendants are entitled to assert a qualified good faith immunity in this matter. E.

Cox v. State

493 N.E.2d 151 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 1986

He argues she was not eligible or qualified under the statute for the position. Thus he maintains she lacked the authority to request the court to grant Drake use immunity. … Thus since she was not qualified she lacked authority to request immunity. Further, he contends this failure resulted in the trial court being powerless to hold Drake in contempt as its grant of immunity was a nullity.

KS&E Sports and Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels

72 N.E.3d 892 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2017

And “it is well established that the allegations of a complaint cannot be changed or expanded by the prayer for relief.” Jerry Alderman Ford Sales, Inc, v. … Because we cannot say Congress clearly and manifestly intended the PLCAA to preempt state law, we find no preemption here. B. Runnels’s constitutional arguments are without merit.

Worthington v. State

181 Ind. App. 365 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1979

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. … However, it was established by the United States Supreme Court in Kastigar v.

America's Best Cinema Corp. v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc.

347 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 1972

Those purposes are clearly not anticompetitive. … The NPA provides for specific exemptions from the antitrust laws for qualifying joint newspaper operating arrangements. The court has found that the defendant newspapers here qualify under that Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1802 .

Higdon v. Wells County Sheriff's Office

426 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 5, 2006

The Defendants have filed their motions for summary judgment arguing that Higdon cannot establish a constitutional violation and, even if he did, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would

BD. OF COM'RS OF COUNTY OF HARRISON v. Lowe

753 N.E.2d 708 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2001

In determining whether Monroe and Steuben counties were entitled to discretionary immunity, the Pequler court stated, The defendants here seek to establish the defense of immunity. … The State argues that the establishment of a speed limit is the adoption of a rule or regulation by the State which is immune.

Crafton v. State

450 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1983

After a short recess, Sells stated, "Judge, I want to qualify that immunity a little bit. I want to make it in accordance with the statute. I don't think I'm authorized to grant any immunity in excess of the statute." … EPPERLY'S PATTERSON STATEMENT Debbie Epperly was called as a witness by the State, and after some preliminary questions establishing that she had been arrested for Barker's robbery and was granted immunity in exchange for

WARNER v. ANDERSON HOUSING AUTHORITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084, 1090 (7th Cir. 2013). … Richardson violated a "clearly established" constitutional right, Ms. Richardson is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Leiser, 933 F.3d at 701.

Hummer v. School City of Hartford City

124 Ind. App. 30 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1953

The rule is well established that governmental immunity may be abrogated or modified by legislative enactment unless prohibited by the Constitution, 160 ALR 85 , and that the Legislature may establish circumstances under … This immunity is a fundamental and long established rule of our common law. Freel v. The School City of Crawfordsville, supra.

Barnes v. Barnes

603 N.E.2d 1337 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1992

in this case, would not be sufficient, in our opinion to qualify. … The defendant's motion did not assert the Rape Shield Statute, but rather cited as authority the rule that one crime cannot be proved in order to establish the commission of another distinct crime because such evidence is

Bartholomew County v. Johnson

995 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2013

Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law,[ 2 ] we construe it narrowly against the grant of immunity. The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act. … Likewise, when a governmental entity is otherwise liable as a joint tortfeasor, no governmental immunity is clearly extended on grounds that the other joint tortfeasor engaged in “the performance of a discretionary function

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2026

code section 34-13-3-5, which generally bars an action against an employee unless the alleged tortious conduct falls “clearly outside the scope of the employee’s employment.” … Immunity Under Code Section 34-13-3-5 The ITCA establishes “certain parameters to determine liability for negligent acts or omissions on the part of government employees” and grants “substantial immunity” for conduct