Case law

Ledbetter v. Hunter

810 N.E.2d 1095 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2004

"Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing." Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996). … Although it was well-established that malpractice insurance premiums had substantially increased, the evidence for the asserted causes was largely anecdotal. Id.

PRICE v. TOLBERT

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

"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 … that Officer Tolbert's actions constituted excessive force under clearly established law.

Fountain Park Co. v. Hensler

199 Ind. 95 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1927

The complaint sets out facts that bring appellant within each of the qualifying provisions of the law, describes the tract of wood or timber land which it holds under a lease and seeks to condemn, alleges that it cannot agree … either special legislation or special laws granting privileges and immunities..

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.

City of Gary v. Allstate Insurance Co.

598 N.E.2d 625 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1992

(Ariz.App.1977), 116 Ariz. 225 , 568 P.2d 1123 (employer qualified as a self-insurer under state law is not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage); Shelton v. … An uninsured motorist is clearly a person "other than" a governmental employee.

Coghill v. Badger

418 N.E.2d 1201 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1981

the fatal defects in the notice cured by Coghill’s bald assertion that it “incorporates by reference” the alleged substance of the earlier phone conversation between Runnels and Scott; the contents and delivery statutes clearly … Because an IPTC claims adjuster would appear to qualify as an agent of IPTC, he would seem to be an appropriate agent for receiving notice of a claim against IPTC. . See also Health and Hospital Corp. v.

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

St. Joseph County Police Dept. v. Shumaker

812 N.E.2d 1143 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2004

If the moving party meets these requirements, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish genuine issues of material fact for trial. Id. Upon appeal, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court. Id. … First, the broad rule of immunity from Seymour has clearly been overruled. However, the narrow scope of immunity set forth in Tittle has also been abandoned.

State ex rel. White v. Scott

171 Ind. 349 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1908

qualified. … They fall far short of establishing a residence in the Southwest, within the. rules of the law.

Chad E. Hucker v. State of Indiana

4 N.E.3d 797 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2014

The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing a constitutional violation, and all doubts are resolved against that party. … Article 1, Section 231 The Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause states that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which

VANIHEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 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' … Johnson has not shown the right to have received more meaningful or frequent periodic reviews to be clearly established, Defendants are protected by qualified immunity, and the Court grants summary judgment

Simpson's Food Fair, Inc. v. City of Evansville

149 Ind. App. 387 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1971

EXCEPTIONS TO IMMUNITY DOCTRINE WHERE PRIVATE DUTY EXISTS In recent years the doctrine of immunity from civil liability has suffered continuing erosion. … In a suit by the parents of the girl against the housing author *393 ity, the court found that the housing complex was crime ridden, that the evidence clearly indicated the housing authority was, in fact, a private landlord

Bessonies v. City of Indianapolis

71 Ind. 189 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1880

It simply regulates the establishment, and does not in any sense prohibit.” But does the ordinance regulate such establishments ? Clearly not. … The third makes the ordinance applicable alike to hospitals then established and those that might be thereafter established.

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

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.

Indiana State Police v. Don's Guns & Galleries

674 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1996

According to the complaint, Trooper Brown “erroneously established” by virtue of a “clearly erroneous inquiry” that Johnson’s handgun was stolen, and “his act of confiscating the handgun” resulted in Don’s Guns being involved … ISP asserts both its immunity and the absence of a private duty owed by ISP to Don’s Guns. Don’s Guns again argues that immunity is inapplicable here and, further, a private duty is owed.

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.

Mahowald v. State

719 N.E.2d 421 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1999

In 1989, the General Assembly established the Legislators’ Retirement System (LRS), codified at Ind.Code §§ 2-3.5-4-1 — 2-3.5-4-10. … Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.

Bradley K. Buchanan v. State of Indiana

122 N.E.3d 969 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2019

“We will . . . find a waiver of sovereign immunity only when the statute at issue contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature’s intention to subject the State to suit … Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(17), the Prosecutor is immune from suit on Buchanan’s claims as alleged.

State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana State Department of Health v. Cristobal Alvarez, C.A. by next friend Cristobal Alvarez

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2020

“When the pleadings present no material issues of fact and the facts shown by the pleadings clearly entitle a party to judgment, the entry of judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.” Book v. … [9] The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted a planning-operational test to determine if an act qualifies as a discretionary function under the ITCA. Jurich v. Ind.