Case law

HOBSON v. KONKLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In short, the defendants have raised qualified immunity, and Mr. Hobson has not demonstrated that the right to possess a cloth face mask was clearly established on November 3, 2020.

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.

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.

Bosaw v. National Treasury Employees' Union

887 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 24, 1995

Next, if jurisdiction is established, the Court must determine what relief can be given within the scope of that jurisdiction. … The issue in this case seems to be whether the proceeding qualifies as an action against the United States. It is fundamental that the United States can only act through its agents.

Wilburn v. St. Joseph Cnty. Juvenile Justice Ctr.

353 F. Supp. 3d 736 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2018

"The only immunities available in an official capacity suit are those that may be asserted by the governmental entity itself ( e.g. , Eleventh Amendment immunity or sovereign immunity)." DeVito v. … It is also "well established that if the original pleadings in an action effectively waive trial by jury under *743 Fed. R. Civ.

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.

E.L.C. Electric, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Labor

825 N.E.2d 16 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2005

Further, ELC requested, inter alia, that the Department be enjoined from: 1) maintaining a listing on any website of the CCW Violators "unless such violators have been established by a Court of law[]"; 2) disseminating information … We also noted that in a defamation action, statements that do not so inform the public, would be "entitled only to qualified immunity, for such a statement will have been made outside the scope of the prosecutor's authority

Johnson v. Herman

132 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 31, 2001

Individual Defendants may receive qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Armstrong, 152 F.3d at 582 (citing Harlow v. … Therefore, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson also presents state law claims for false imprisonment and wrongful incarceration.

Benyoun

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that Defendants Gonzalez, Garcia, Leimbach, and Slivko are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v.

FAIRCHILD, PROSECUTING ATTY., ETC. v. Schanke

232 Ind. 480 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1953

No valid reason has been given to justify the establishment of the class which is attempted to be created by the act. … privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, are not granted to other clubs and individuals similarly situr ated.

In Re Contempt Findings Against Schultz

428 N.E.2d 1284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1981

Clearly, the constitution does not require us to transform the possibility of further prosecution in this or another jurisdiction into a source of absolute protected silence on the part of the witness. … excluding the answers thus elicited, in any subsequent criminal case. * * * * * * It exempts no one from the consequences of a crime which he may have committed, but only from the necessity of himself producing the evidence to establish

Albright v. State

501 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1986

We agree with the State's first contention and find Albright did not establish that Mooney was qualified to express an opinion on the issue of contemporary community standards. … Our supreme court acknowledged that it would be "a denial of equal protection for state authorities to establish a policy that only blacks would be prosecuted for particular crimes and that whites would be granted immunity

Emmis Publishing Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

612 N.E.2d 614 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 8, 1993

"Clearly, the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press. … Clearly, the trial court determined that 'TV Facts' lacked essential ingredients in its form to constitute a newspaper under the statute.

Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority v. Cadence Blanchard

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2025

Court’s caselaw establishes “order” as the key phrase. See Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Ind. Horse Racing Comm’n, 827 N.E.2d 162, 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Smith v. … Therefore, this court will “not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous,” id. 52(A); that is, this court “must determine ‘whether the evidence supports the findings and, if so, whether

Hottinger v. Trugreen Corp.

665 N.E.2d 593 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 1996

In the establishment of her prima facie case, Hottinger relied on the expert opinion of Dr. … However, after her exposure to (2-4-D) in 1990, she had brain, peripheral nerve and immune function deficits consistent with toxic exposure to the herbicide.

Love v. Pence

47 F. Supp. 3d 805 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2014

Standard A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents newly discovered evidence or if the movant clearly establishes a manifest error of fact or law. … However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

IBEW Local 305 Inc. v. Allen County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 13, 2026

These erroneous restrictions unnecessarily limit Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-36.3, as educational establishments like the JATC can qualify as schools for purposes of subsection (c)(2). I. … When interpreting a statute, the Court must first “determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question.”

Anderson v. State

104 Ind. 467 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1885

Thus instructing the jury involves, in a qualified sense at least, the exercise of a judgment upon all matters of law concerning which the judge must give information to the jury. … In a more comprehensive sense it may be said to be “ a privilege or immunity recognized or conferred by competent authority.”

Palmiter v. Action, Inc.

548 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 8, 1982

, would be immune from attachment. … of MAP’s assets derive from grants made through the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under the HeadstartFollow Through Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2928 , et seq. (1976), and predecessor statutes authorizing funding for qualified

Sweeney v. State

704 N.E.2d 86 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1998

Defendant’s contention is clearly mistaken. … a use immunity agreement exists.