Case law

Baxter v. State

727 N.E.2d 429 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2000

The rule regarding jury separation during deliberations is well established and strict. … The trial court’s finding that no harm resulted to Baxter was not clearly erroneous. VI.

Strange v. Board of Commissioners

173 Ind. 640 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1910

This section is akin to the provision of §1 of the 14th amendment, as respects privileges and immunities, but the former is held not to make the privileges and immunities (the rights) enjojred by citizens of the several states … The rule of ejusdem generis does not apply when the prior or specific words exhaust the class, for 'there is nothing of the remaining terms to qualify; and following the rule that all parts of a statute shall, if possible

Smithson v. HOWARD REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM

933 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2010

"If the evidence permits conflicting reasonable inferences as to material facts, the governmental unit has failed to establish its immunity." Bules v. Marshall County, 920 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind.2010). … The Smithsons have failed to establish prejudice from Howard Regional's omission to plead governmental immunity in its answer. 3 . All dates refer to 2005. 4 . Measurements are in inches and degrees Fahrenheit. 5 .

Abigail Elizabeth Freeman Jacks, a minor, by next friends Jennifer Jacks and William Scott Freeman, and Jennifer Jacks, and Jennifer Edwards v. Tipton Community School Corporation

94 N.E.3d 712 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2018

“The party seeking immunity has the burden of establishing that its conduct falls within one of the exceptions provided by the ITCA.” Id. … The General Assembly’s comprehensive statutory scheme regarding school bus transportation clearly differentiates between “employment contracts” and “transportation contracts.”

Zehner v. Trigg

952 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 1997

Apart from the examples of political questions committed to other branches of government, the doctrines of sovereign immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and qualified and absolute immunity for individual government officials … In light of the well-established doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity under § 1983, such a damages remedy cannot be constitutionally required in all eases.

Kelver v. State

808 N.E.2d 154 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 13, 2004

Equal Privileges and Immunities Kelver first asserts that I.C. § 9-19-10-2, along with the supporting statutory definitions, violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution and the equal protection … In addition, this "preferential treatment" is equally available to anyone who owns a motor vehicle that qualifies as a truck and chooses to register and plate the vehicle as a truck. See Collins, 644 N.E.2d at 80 .

Rowe v. State

867 N.E.2d 262 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 2007

The court in Abney restated the well-settled rule established in Micinski v. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Matshazi v.

Hamner v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.

92 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2000

Although this second report clearly contained criticisms of Community and its staff, there is nothing in Mr. … Statutory Immunity An Indiana statute provides: An employer that discloses information about a current or former employee is immune from civil liability for the disclosure and the consequences proximately caused by the disclosure

State v. Carey

241 Ind. 692 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1961

that an. employer-employee relationship existed between *695 the city and its firemen and policemen, with respect to the application of the workmen’s compensation law, notwithstanding the fact that pension systems had been established … The “legislative intention,” which appellee asserts, is not expressed in nor can it be inferred from the statute; nor are we aware of any general public policy that a municipal officer should be immune from criminal prosecution

McGhee v. State

899 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2008

I am not convinced that Detective Cole’s statement qualified as an implied promise, or for that matter, a direct promise, or that it clearly rendered McGhee’s confession involuntary such that the trial court’s finding of … Given the nature of the statement at issue, in my view the trial court was fully justified in concluding that it did not constitute a direct promise of immunity or leniency.

Michael Whittaker v. State of Indiana

33 N.E.3d 1063 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 20, 2015

[10] Five years after establishing the two-step analysis in Collins, our Supreme Court again dealt with Section 23 in Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. 1999). … [11] Similarly, we need not discuss whether Indiana Code section 1-1-5.5-21 passes the first prong of the Collins analysis because it clearly fails on the second prong.

Sims v. Kernan

72 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 1999

The defendants assert that the claims against them him are barred by the statute of limitations, that they are entitled to either absolute judicial immunity or qualified immunity, that court should abstain from exercising … Because the court concludes that Judge Brook did not violate the plaintiffs federally protected rights by entering the order described in the January 27, 1998 entry, it does not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Michaele Schon and Neal Schon v. Mike Frantz, ESG Security, Inc., Allen County War Memorial Coliseum, and Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2020

has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. … We conclude that the Schons have failed to establish that the trial court erred in finding that the Coliseum is a governmental entity immune from liability under Section 34-13-3-3(10) of the ITCA.

American Bldgs. Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc.

506 N.E.2d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1987

This future reference to the trial clearly limits application of this provision to experts retained for the purposes of the pending litigation. … As stated in 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024; "In order to come within the qualified immunity from discovery created by Rule 26(b)(8) three tests must be satisfied. The material must be: "1.

Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. McCarty

30 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 1998

constitutional immunity.” … Despite the fact that its participation clearly was not required and its actions clearly were subject to judicial review in federal district court, Indiana chose to participate under the Act.

Fairchild

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 10, 2026

Further, even if there had been a seizure, Richards would be protected by qualified immunity which, as explained above, “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The relevant inquiry when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity is into “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.,” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742.

Lake County Trust Co. v. Advisory Plan Commission

883 N.E.2d 124 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Yanoff, 688 N.E.2d at 1262 . “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. … A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id.

Wau-pe-man-qua v. Aldrich

28 F. 489 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · Jul 1, 1886

It is claimed, however, that the distinction suggested is made and established by the decision in the case of Pennock v. Commissioners, etc., 103 U. S. 44 . … The italicized clause, it must be observed, qualifies the entire proposition; and so, doubtless, it has always been competent for Indiana to send its officers, with process, criminal or civil, into the reservations and lands

Jug's Catering, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Unemployment Insurance Board

714 N.E.2d 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

It does not grant perpetual immunity. Id. … may be subject to unemployment tax liability must comply; it is merely an option afforded to those who do qualify.”

Municipal City of South Bend v. Kimsey

781 N.E.2d 683 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

Only Tippecanoe County qualified under the legislation, but the statute did not identify Tippecanoe County by name. … This may be done by presenting evidence establishing the lack of distinct characteristics, or, as in Williams, the relevant facts may be subject to judicial notice.