Case law

Haas v. South Bend Community School Corporation

259 Ind. 515 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1972

Similarly, does the above-mentioned rule violate Art. 1, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution which provides that the “General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon … Such was clearly not the case. In fact, the member school, Shields High School of Seymour, Indiana, was defending against the plaintiff’s action rather than challenging the validity of the association’s rule.

Greer v. State

669 N.E.2d 751 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1996

In the absence of an objection, the State did not have the burden to affirmatively establish that Greer was informed of and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. … It is true that the supreme court held that a defendant serving home detention while awaiting trial is "imprisoned awaiting trial" and is therefore qualified for membership in Class I.

INDIANAPOLIS HORSE PATROL, INC., a CORP. v. Ward

247 Ind. 519 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1966

However, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and plaintiff may overcome this by proof of actual or express malice...." In 33 Am. Jur. … The question to be ascertained here is not whether certain evidence was admissible, but whether certain evidence established a situation which would create a legal immunity.

Farley v. Hammond Sanitary District

956 N.E.2d 76 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2011

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. Id. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclusions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Id.

City of Crown Point v. Lake County

510 N.E.2d 684 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1987

County Immunity from Zoning Code Aside from its claim under the Home Rule Act, the County argues that its statutory authority to establish Community Correctional Centers prevails over the statutory authority of the City to … The superior sovereign test presents the difficulty of attempting to establish a meaningful hierarchical ranking. Note, Governmental Immunity from Zoning, 22 B.C.L.Rev. 783, 790 (1981).

Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City Of Gary, Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2025

The City has failed to establish that the Reservation Statute is an unconstitutional special law. 7 In KS&E Sports, the Supreme Court observed: “One explanation [for the Immunity Statute] may be … The City failed to establish a separation of powers or open courts violation.

Saegesser Engineering, Inc. v. Terry Amick (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2018

Amick also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on the defamation claim based on absolute immunity, qualified immunity, lack of actual malice, and lack of defamatory imputation. … Finally, Saegesser also argued that Amick was not entitled to absolute immunity or qualified immunity and that there were genuine issues regarding the elements of the defamation claim.

Berman v. American National Red Cross

834 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 6, 1993

Clearly however, Hanna shows that it takes more than a congressional designation as a federally chartered instrumentality to become protected by sovereign immunity. … Although it is clear Congress waived portions of the immunity when it required the Red Cross “to sue and be sued”, the Act which established the American National Red Cross is silent as to the availability of jury trials.

Bovey v. City of Lafayette, Ind.

586 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 1984

It was certainly not clearly established under the facts of this case. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Hatchett v. State

740 N.E.2d 920 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2000

Privileges and Immunities Hatchett next asserts that the SVF statute violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution "because it … also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.'"

Riggin v. Bd. of Trust. of Ball State Univ.

489 N.E.2d 616 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1986

Clearly, it is a function of Ball State to employ and discharge professors. … The court's findings are clearly supported by the evidence.

State v. Internal Revenue Serv.

309 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2018

Qualifying relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property, bailee and bailor, and assignee and assignor. … However, they clearly may be in privity with the State for some purposes but not others.

Indianapolis Horse Patrol, Inc. v. Ward

247 Ind. 519 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1966

However, the absence of malice is established only prima facie, and plaintiff may overcome this by proof of actual or express malice. . . .” In 33 Am. Jur. … The question to be ascertained here is not whether certain evidence was admissible, but whether certain evidence established a situation which would create a legal immunity.

Waters v. National Farmers Organization, Inc.

328 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 1971

Consequently, plaintiffs state that defendant is not operated for the mutual benefit of its members and therefore does not qualify for the immunity from the antitrust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as … These cases establish that neither the Clayton Act nor Capper-Volstead Act immunized contracts, combinations or conspiracies to restrain interstate commerce entered into between a farm co *1237 operative and other persons

Simpson v. OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

939 N.E.2d 1098 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2010

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. … If the facts allow multiple reasonable conclu *1104 sions as to an element triggering the immunity, then the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

Weller v. Grant County Sheriff

75 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 1999

“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).

Kodrea v. City of Kokomo, Ind.

458 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2006

Qualified Immunity and Individual Liability Defendants contend that even if Ko-drea’s speech is protected, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, if Kodrea’s right was “clearly established,” then Defendants do not have qualified immunity. The Court concludes that the right was clearly established.

Henshilwood v. Hendricks County

653 N.E.2d 1062 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1995

Use of the ditch to collect water was its intended use, and clearly foreseeable and known to the County. The County cannot claim immunity under this clause. … No. 17A03-9412-CR-443 (application of Mullin test established private duty owed by County as facts showed injured party relied on County’s promise to dispatch ambulance).

James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch v. C. Joseph Yast

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to designate sufficient material to establish that Defendant abused his qualified privilege. … Moreover, Yast’s lack of ill will is clearly established by the host of witnesses who testified that Yast never said anything derogatory about Gagan or the other sellers.

Fager v. Hundt

610 N.E.2d 246 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1993

Bruen (1990), 106 Nev. 271 , 792 P.2d 18 ("where the fact of abuse is clearly and convineingly corroborated"); Jones v. … The plaintiff submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers of perception and recollection