Case law

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).

Andrianova v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

799 N.E.2d 5 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2003

Those exceptions are enumerated in the Interim Guideline Regulations, and five of them are clearly inapplicable in this case. … In the latter case, the statute involved was one that Congress clearly intended to be construed liberally.

Wolf v. Kajima International Inc.

621 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1993

Rogers is entitled to the immunity afforded by the Act. … The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held (1) a general contractor qualifies for statutory employer immunity under the LHWCA, and (2) a general contractor is entitled to immunity from tort actions where it

King v. Bartholomew County Hospital

476 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1985

Finally, I.C. 16-12.1-5.1 provides that all physicians possessing an unlimited license to practice medicine and surgery are eligible for membership on the medical staff, subject, however to the power of the board to establish … Such would be consistent with the qualified privilege granted in such cases.

Dickson v. Aaron

667 N.E.2d 759 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1996

We shall therefore treat the trial court's “qualified" statements as findings of fact on this issue. 2 . … In her cross-appeal, Aaron alleges that the court erred in finding that Dickson was entitled to qualified immunity.

City of Hammond v. Reffitt

789 N.E.2d 998 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2003

from liability under the principles of common law immunity; and 3) Reffitt failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … Trial Rule 50(A) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provides: Where all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury or an advisory jury are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdiet thereon is clearly

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.

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.'"

Russell v. United States

626 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 1986

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity It is a well established principle of law that the United States may not be sued without its consent. … The statute and subsequent case law clearly indicate that the United States cannot be held civilly liable unless the tort-feasor is an employee of the federal government. United States v.

Buse v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District

953 N.E.2d 519 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2011

Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. … Our supreme court disagreed that the landowners’ claims qualified as a public lawsuit.

Lippeatt v. Comet Coal & Clay Co., Inc.

419 N.E.2d 1332 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1981

Horton, (1956) 126 Ind.App. 651 , 133 N.E.2d 568 , it is also true that the habendum may lessen, enlarge, explain, or qualify a conveyance. Claridge v. Phelps, supra. … The trial court only construed the Lippeatt deed and the examination of the other deeds established that the defendant-appellees were proper parties to this lawsuit by demonstrating ownership of other veins.

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

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).

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. and Louise Liford d/b/a Thirsty Turtle v. City of Indianapolis, Mayor Greg Ballard, Indianapolis City-Council, and Hoosier Park, LLC

51 N.E.3d 195 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2016

"Whether a statute or ordinance is constitutional on its face is a question of law and we review the matter de novo," though it "stands before this Court clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome … Paul Stieler also holds that because certain factors were "not embodied" in its challenged ordinance "as prerequisites," they were "clearly not inherent distinguishing characteristics" and were not reasonably related to the

Lomont v. State

852 N.E.2d 1002 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2006

The court ordered that Lomont could serve his one-year sentence in the Steuben County Work Release Program, if he qualified for the program, and placed Lomont on probation for two years. I. … In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we employ the two-part test established by the Indiana Supreme Court in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994). Minton v.

State v. Gibson

36 Ind. 389 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1871

We have said that one of the reserved powers'was that to establish a judicial department. … The natural l^w which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures.

Adams v. State

259 Ind. 64 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1971

We applied a qualified rule in 1924, (St. Vincent’s Hospital v. Stine, 195 Ind. 350 , 114 N. E. 537 ), followed through in 1963 (Richardson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 135 Ind. App. 1 , 191 N. … On those occasions, we exercised the authority that is clearly ours and fulfilled the responsibilities that we cannot deny. Our position in the case before us is the same.

Fields v. Town of Merrillville

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2022

claims, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate “clearly established constitutional rights.” … However, “because a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

State of Indiana v. I.T.

4 N.E.3d 1139 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2014

The Statute’s terms clearly confer use immunity, but do not necessarily extend to derivative use immunity. We begin with the language of the Statute to determine the scope of its protections. … Though the statutory language clearly grants use immunity, it is far less clear whether its protection also extends to derivative use of the statement to prompt further investi- gation to develop similar evidence from other

State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. Moritz

244 Ind. 156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1963

The relator is not immune from these well established rules of practice. … The designation may further indicate the nature and character of the office, but it clearly was not meant to nor does it define the qualifications of that office.