Case law

Fox v. State

497 N.E.2d 221 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1986

The purpose of an instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict. … As hearsay, it was inadmissible for the purpose of establishing that threats were made against his family.

Huffman v. INDIANA DEPT. OF ENVIR. MAN.

788 N.E.2d 505 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 19, 2003

clearly suggested that intent. [3] *509 Because the legislature already has defined who qualifies for administrative review, it was error for the OEA to read into the phrase "aggrieved or adversely affected" a common law … or adversely affected" person merely by establishing that she is a citizen of the State of Indiana.

Blanchard v. Hyatte

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2024

As an affirmative defense, qualified immunity provides more than a “mere defense to liability,” it provides “immunity from suit.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); see also Sinn v. … Clearly Established Constitutional Violation Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Scott v. City of Seymour

659 N.E.2d 585 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1995

The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the motion. Gilliam, 648 N.E.2d at 1238 . … In finding governmental immunity, we reasoned that Crown Point had made discretionary decisions which clearly involved the exercise of judgment and the formulation of basic policy on the part of Crown Point officials.

City of Indianapolis v. Constant

498 N.E.2d 1308 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1986

The immunity section of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, IND. … The effect of governmental immunity regarding discretionary functions is that it will prevent liability even in a situation where negligence might otherwise be clearly established. See Jacobs v.

Ctr. for Wildlife Ethics, Inc. v. Clark

325 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2018

In order to determine whether or not removal was objectively reasonable, the Seventh Circuit has directed me to analogize the situation to a qualified immunity determination and to determine whether clearly established law … By contrast, if clearly established law did not foreclose a defendant's basis for removal, then a district court should not award attorneys' fees.").

Melissa Burklow v. Dearborn County and Dearborn County Sheriff (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

Even if timely filed, the Sheriff argues that qualified immunity defeats Burklow’s defamation claim. … Such statements fall within the qualified privilege doctrine. [19] We further note that, at the very least, Burklow cannot establish the publication element of a defamation claim.

Crist v. South-West Lake Maxinkuckee Conservancy District

875 N.E.2d 222 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2007

While we agree that Indiana Code section 14-33-2-28 clearly states that an appellant can appeal the trial court’s order establishing a conservancy district directly to our Supreme Court, Rule 5(A) trumps that statute and … citizen, or any class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA Inc.

929 N.E.2d 184 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2010

As statements imputing criminal conduct or occupational misconduct, these alleged statements clearly qualify for consideration as defamation per se. … The designated evi- dence here clearly establishes that Komorowski's statements were based on an accumulation of several years of careful personal observations and gathering of information from others with first-hand knowledge

HOGAN v. TUMEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2024

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

Sarah Nickolson v. Tammie Freed (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

Like Freed, the defendant in Burton raised the affirmative defense of government employee immunity for conduct not “clearly outside the scope of the employee’s employment.” … Conclusion [22] Because Freed was not acting clearly outside the scope of her employment at the time of the collision, she is entitled to government employee immunity.

Sanquenetti v. State

727 N.E.2d 437 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2000

Contrary to the defendant's assertion that the statute establishes a "legislative distinction between accessories and principals," Brief of Defendant-Appellant at 11, the accomplice liability statute neither establishes separate … We conclude, however, that the mitigation is clearly outweighed by the fact of two extremely violent murders, each separately committed.

Teresa Barton v. Columbus Robotics, Inc., Columbus Festival of Lights, Inc., Paragon Meeting & Events, LLC, The City of Columbus, Indiana, and Reising Radio Partners, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2018

), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 27 2018, 9:12 am court except for the purpose of establishing … “Neither arguments of counsel nor allegations in memoranda qualify as evidentiary materials for purposes of a motion for summary judgment.” Richards-Wilcox v. Cummins, 700 N.E.2d 496, 499 n.3 (Ind. Ct.

Klobuchar v. Purdue University

553 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1990

Immunity from liabili ty. … We find this language of the ITCA clearly applies to the present situation and none *174 of the cases that Norma cites convince us otherwise.

Jacobs v. Board of Com'rs of Morgan County

652 N.E.2d 94 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1995

Jacobs's accident occurred in 1990, and thus clearly falls within the design immunity section. … Morgan County may be immune from liability if it can establish that the challenged decision was the result of a policy-If the oriented decision-making process. *99 County is successful in this, then we may not judge the wisdom

Waldo v. Gregory Ex Rel. Gregory

469 N.E.2d 480 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1984

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert approved by the court. … That concern was met here as the evidence clearly was sufficient to establish Dr. Conneally as a qualified expert in the scientific field involved.

Thompson v. State

425 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1981

There is no question but that the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity incorporated not only immunity from liability for torts, but also immunity from liability for interest. See Anglin & Stevenson v. … State, 46 Ind.LJ. 544 (1971); Note, Sovereign Immunity in Indiana —Requiem? 6 Ind.L.Rev. 92 (1972).

Pena v. East Chicago City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2024

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Evaluation of a qualified immunity defense is a two-step inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

In Re Wthr-Tv

693 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1998

But this must be done on a case by case basis; the possibility of abuse does not justify immunity from discovery that the stations seek. … we easily conclude that Cline's discovery demand does not rise to the level required to establish a Section 9 violation.

Barnes v. Barnes

566 N.E.2d 1042 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1991

The Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the action, noting the rationale underlying the bar to actions by a child against his or her parent: It is well established that a minor child cannot sue his parent for a tort … On the contrary, the Smith court clearly contemplated suits based on allegations such as those in this case — i.e.