Case law

City of Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Water Co.

185 Ind. 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1916

The allegations of each paragraph are clearly sufficient to show a prior user of an established highway by the public, and a change in the form of government or of territorial *295 boundaries would not defeat such dedication … But, on the other hand, “powers, the exercise of which can only be justified on this specific ground, and which would otherwise be clearly prohibited by the constitution, can be such only as are so clearly necessary to the

MOORE v. DAVIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 2025

Qualified immunity standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084, 1090 (7th Cir. 2013).

TOWNSEND v. MCWILLIAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong because they did not violate Ms. Townsend’s clearly established rights. Dkt. 79 at 13–24. … under clearly established law.

Boatwright v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc.

810 N.E.2d 766 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2004

The Fire Marshal next argues that Celebration's claims for monetary relief are barred by governmental immunity. … That statute contemplates permits for each location, and establishes a schedule of charges related to the number of stands a retailer operates.

Sander v. State

816 N.E.2d 75 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2004

The statute establishes three criteria for eligibility for educational credit time. … Finally, the applicant must establish that the qualifying ed-ueational achievement was accomplished.

Goble v. State

766 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2002

Rush has no immunity from prosecution by Michael Lynn...." Id. at 928. … The trial court clearly considered the length and stage of the proceedings, recognizing that the trial was almost complete when *6 Goble requested that Mr.

Sobieralski v. City of South Bend

479 N.E.2d 98 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1985

It is well established that the rights intended to be protected under the federal and Indiana constitutional guarantees of equal protection and privileges are identical. Sidle v. … I, § 23 states, "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, *100 upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." 4 .

State of Indiana v. Eastlund B. Wendell (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2019

An abuse of discretion occurs when the “trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. … The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and, therefore, an abuse of discretion.

City of New Albany, Indiana v. Ecosystems Connections Institute, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2025

“It is well- established that failure to raise an argument or issue below results in waiver of that issue.” N.H. Ins. Co. v. Ind. Auto. Ins. Plan, 176 N.E.3d 514, 524 n.4 (Ind. Ct. … The work to remove the Dam, i.e., the excavation of the Dam, therefore clearly falls under the purview of Indiana Code section 14-28-1- 22.

Bryce A. Burton v. Martin Benner and Indiana State Police

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2020

Troopers that operate State Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CT-00549 | March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 9 Police commissions are subject to a Standard Operating Procedure that establishes guidelines for the operation … Discussion and Decision Because Trooper Benner raised an affirmative defense that he was immune from personal liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”), the issue in this case is whether Benner was acting “clearly

Malone

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … 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.

Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP and State of Indiana

122 N.E.3d 935 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2019

The designated evidence establishes that the land had been used for row crops since at least 1941. 6 Further, the record clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs’ non-farming use of their properties … Privileges and Immunities Clause [39] Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which

Gross v. State

267 Ind. 405 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1977

The facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case defendant cites, Aubrey v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 692 , 310 N.E.2d 556 . … There was no actual refusal to testify and no drawn out immunity or civil contempt proceedings.

Montgomery v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY

824 N.E.2d 1278 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005

The Court ultimately determined that Congress had clearly intended to abrogate such immunity, but that the ADEA was not a proper exercise of its constitutional authority. … Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind.1988), and this Court has stated that conclusory arguments do not discharge the appellant's burden of establishing reversible error." Pope v.

Warram v. Stanton

415 N.E.2d 114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1981

The second part (Ind.Code 4-22-1-14 through 4-22-1-19) delineates the procedure for judicial review of administrative orders, decisions, or determinations not clearly and unambiguously excepted therefrom. … Thus, if he is a mere interloper, not qualified to represent the class, neither he nor the class whom he purports to represent have any valid status in court. ...” 237 Ind. at 318 , 145 N.E.2d 573 .

Wine-Settergren v. Lamey

716 N.E.2d 381 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1999

This nexus is established when a reasonably prudent person considers the injury to be born out of a risk incidental to the employment, or when the facts indicate a connection between the injury and the circumstances under … Given this evidence, the trial court’s determination that her injuries were accidentally caused was not clearly erroneous. 2 .

Chandler Natural Gas Corp. v. Barr

110 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2000

Therefore, all defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity under this claim. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Hargrave and Weis are immune from damage claims, but may be subject to injunc-tive relief under this theory.

PIERCE v. ALICEA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2025

Pierce and that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1. … "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

Garcia

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2026

Hess’s constitutional rights, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to evaluate whether each right was clearly established on February 15, 2019, considering the particular circumstances of the case. … “A constitutional right is clearly established for qualified- immunity purposes [when the] contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Decatur County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.

261 Ind. 128 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1973

The statutory language found in Section 18a and § 55-4418 (a), cited hereinabove, clearly establishes that the legislature conceived of no distinction between an REMC and other public utilities. … That statute establishes the procedure whereby termination is effected.