Case law

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Stearns v. Zulka

489 N.E.2d 146 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1986

That is, are the photographs sought by Zulka clearly material and relevant to the defense of the underlying action; is there a compelling need for them in the sense that they are critical to the fair determination of the … Newspapers, television and radio stations-Press Associations-Employees and representatives-Immunity.

Roberson v. Nathanael

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 9, 2025

Government officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”

Greathouse v. Board of School Commissioners

198 Ind. 95 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1926

Under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution the state cannot deny to a citizen of the United States or deprive him of his national rights, privileges and immunities which belong to … The state must give to each citizen of the United States who is or becomes a bona fide citizen therein, the same rights, privileges and immunities secured by her Constitution.

City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloat

50 N.E.3d 135 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2016

The City asserted: (1) Beloat was unable to establish the cause of her injury; (2) the City was immune from liability pursuant to the ITCA’s discretionary function immunity … Whether the conduct involved establishment of plans, specifications and schedule; and f.

State Ex Rel. Davenport v. International Harvester Co.

216 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1940

Chapter 81, Acts of 1933 (§ 64-901 et seq., Burns’ 1933, § 15899 et seq., Baldwin’s 1934), commonly known as the Intangible Tax Act, is clearly a general excise tax measure. … This does not mean that the admitted corporation may enjoy any immunity from taxes, licenses, or regulations imposed on domestic corporations upon the same terms.

Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Avant

650 N.E.2d 1164 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1995

Not only did he fail to qualify for fall eligibility under the IHSAA rules, Avant also failed to establish that application of the Transfer Rule to him constituted an undue hardship. … Whether judicial review of the actions of a private voluntary association is proper without first establishing a civil or property right. B.

Baker v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

260 F. Supp. 2d 731 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 29, 2003

He also makes a separate claim that, in December 2001, he applied for an “Accountant I” position within FSSA, but that the position was offered to an allegedly less qualified Caucasian applicant. Id. f 20. … In addition, Carl Hoffman made a discriminatory remark which clearly indicated to me that I would not be considered for promotion because of my race. Compl., Ex. A.

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

951 N.E.2d 244 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2011

As our supreme court observed many years ago, the General Assembly and others in State government essentially are entrusted with establishing broad guidelines for the establishment of a tuition-free, “general and uniform” … This provision clearly does not by itself give rise to a cause of action of any kind against a school corporation or its governing body.

Newman v. State

263 Ind. 569 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1975

In the case before us it appears that the omission as to the immunity granted was inadvertent. … But the testimony of each witness clearly was intended to reinforce the testimony of the other. The credibility of one witness would have an effect on the strength of the testimony offered by the other.

Cooley v. Hosier

659 N.E.2d 1127 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1996

Once the movant establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts indicating that there is a genuine issue in dispute. … Vaughan then observed that "the [Smith ] court does continue that under extreme circumstances the immunity may not exist, however, a failure to supervise, as in this case, would not be sufficient, in our opinion to qualify

Allstate Insurance v. Boles

587 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 30, 1984

In abrogating Indiana’s common law spousal immunity, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the reasoning tendered for retention of the immunity was judicially unsound and that there was no legislation to the contrary. … The holding in Brooks is clearly addressed only to the issue of interspousal immunity.

Hanninen v. Koch

868 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2007

She has not established that the QSO statute violates Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. B. … The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified settlement

Eric McGowen and Vision Logistics, Inc. v. Bradley Montes

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2020

The General Assembly clearly knew how to specify medical care, including specific medical treatments, in the GSL. … ” [27] Next, Montes argues the scene of the vehicle collision did not qualify as an “objective emergency.” Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Br. p. 13.

Seymour National Bank v. State

384 N.E.2d 1177 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1979

Thus, if the plaintiff could establish that the officer was engaged in a ministerial function, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover on the basis of respondeat superior since the officer was not protected by immunity … The amendments, supra note 7, clearly disclose that the legislature was concerned with the end result of enforcement upon the object thereof. 12 .

M.C. v. Marion County Department of Child Services

905 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2009

Findings are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. … Mother further contends that the juvenile court erred by ordering her to establish paternity because paternity had already been established in August 2007.

McKenna v. City of Fort Wayne

429 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1981

State, (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 286 , 95 Cal.Rptr. 665 , establishing a test for immunity under the statute where part (but not all) of a public park has been improved. … Consequently, we hold the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity because the City, at best, established only one-half of the necessary factual predicate — “natural condition of unimproved

CORDELLIONE v. GRAY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … "To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Trosky

918 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2009

Under the ASIC policy, Culpepper and Trosky qualified as insureds because they were occupants 'of a vehicle owned by the Browns at the time of the accident. … Those cases adopt a broader definition of the policy language, holding that "legally entitled to recover" means only that the insured establish fault on the part of the uninsured or underinsured motorist, and establish the

EDWARDSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2026

"Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a defendant is entitled to dismissal unless a plaintiff comes forward with facts showing a constitutional violation and law showing his right was 'clearly established … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing "clearly established law . . . particularized to the facts of the case." Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2017).

Lohmiller v. State

884 N.E.2d 903 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2008

record, one CHIRP agreement, 3 one tuberculosis test record, and one tetanus immunization record. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before it.