Case law

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

Bauer v. Doperalski

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 16, 2025

The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Bauer’s clearly established rights by complying with Indiana law. Qualified immunity shields Officer Doperalski’s actions.

Snyder v. Shelby County Department of Public Welfare

418 N.E.2d 1171 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

The work product immunity originally developed from the case of Hickman v. … If one statutory criterion is established by clear, cogent, and indubitable evidence, we will affirm the judgment.

State Bd. of Tax Commrs. v. Ft. Wayne Sport Club, Inc.

147 Ind. App. 129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1970

NEITHER APPELLEE QUALIFIES AS A “FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION” Quite clearly, neither Ft. Wayne Sport Club nor St. Joe Athletic Club are fraternal beneficiary associations. … In our view, the well-established and obvious purpose for legislative conferral of tax exemptions requires a showing of some public benefit as a condition precedent to the granting of such exemption.

Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles

982 N.E.2d 312 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

City of Fort Wayne v. Maplewood Park Utilities, Inc.

143 Ind. App. 507 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1968

Our task is to apply these established rules to the provisions of the challenged Act. The controlling considerations were well stated in Heckler v. Conter (1933), 206 Ind. 376, 381 , 187 N. … However, “it becomes a . judicial question when it clearly appears that the classification is not based on substantial distinctions with reference to the subject matter, or is manifestly unjust or unreasonable.”

Clement v. State

524 N.E.2d 36 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1988

Ed. 2d 416 , establish that sovereign immunity does not extend beyond a state's borders into another state, and that Kentucky government entities are not immune from suit for torts committed in Indiana. … Although Clement's motion is unclear, the memorandum in support thereof clearly challenges the dismissal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Long v. Barrett

818 N.E.2d 18 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2004

; that her claims were barred by the defense of good faith; that they were shielded by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity; that her claims were barred by common law immunity; and that immunity pursuant to the Indiana Tort … Long initially testified that she was shown a warrant that indicated a charge of forgery, which would indicate Warrant #1; but, in later testimony, she clearly identified Warrant # 2 as the warrant shown to her and affirmed

Porter County Sheriff Department v. Guzorek

857 N.E.2d 363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2006

This is most clearly demonstrated by federal cases allowing relation back where plaintiffs pursuing § 1983 claims had incorrectly named immune institutional entities rather than individual defendants. … None involves a suit against a clearly immune party and all involve a rational decision to sue one party and not another.

Rockrohr v. Norfolk Southern Corp.

797 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 18, 1992

CODE § 34-4-16.5-1, et seq. 2 She reasoned that the immunity at issue was not a “traditional immunity” such as absolute judicial immunity, which prevents an action from even accruing. … Rather, it was an immunity arising after accrual of a generally recognized right to recover.

Smith v. Stoner

594 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 1984

While Stoner, individually, may be entitled to a qualified immunity based upon good faith, the Office of Sheriff of Noble County, Indiana does not possess and is not entitled to any qualified immunity based upon good faith … The suit, insofar as it relates to Stoner individually, is controlled by the issue of Stoner’s entitlement to a qualified immunity based upon good faith. Harlow v.

Turczi v. State

271 Ind. 329 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1979

However, there was also evidence presented at the hearing which tended to establish that no agreement was ever made. … Although the exact procedure of issuing the nolle prosequi against Bobis was never mentioned, the questions asked of him clearly showed the jury his background of involvement with the crime and his release.

Virginia Tramill, Miah Gant, Marquel Cheaney and Jeremiah Tramill, the Mother and Children of Sara Tramill v. Anonymous Healthcare Provider

37 N.E.3d 553 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2015

The email language establishes only that the Appellants would not object to the third panelist being a forensic pathologist. … It does not establish that counsel agreed the third panelist would be a forensic pathologist and is not a stipulation.

Martin v. Richey

674 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1997

Further, it is the challenger’s burden to show that the alleged constitutional defects are clearly apparent. Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 56-57 (Ind.1991). … Also of some significance is the fact that article I, § 5 of the 1816 Constitution, which established a *1026 $20 amount-in-controversy minimum, was not retained in the 1851 Constitution.

CURRY v. NORTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2024

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "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

May v. Collins

122 F.R.D. 535 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 1988

Defendants, Collins and Buickel, acting in the scope of their authority and pursuant to law, have qualified immunity from any liability. This matter is set for trial on August 8, 1988. … This Court appreciates Indiana’s interests expressed in their statute which grants absolute immunity.

Robins v. Harris

740 N.E.2d 914 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2000

Code § 36-2-2-24(a), which provides, in part: "The executive shall establish and maintain a ... county jail...." … Once the Commissioners establish and reasonably maintain a jail, they are not responsible for administering the manner of an inmate's incarceration. Id.

Coleman v. Baker

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 2023

The Court analyzes the two prongs of qualified immunity in reverse order, first holding Officer Baker was entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established, then finding … As such, holding that the absence of a case directly on point alone is also sufficient to clearly establish a right would eviscerate qualified immunity.

Morningstar v. Aguilera

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 2025

reasonable amount of force to effectuate his arrest and, regardless, (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.