Case law

HOLLEMAN v. GILBERT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2022

"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." White v. Pauly. 137 S. … "[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.

ROBINSON v. AYORINDE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 2021

A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity if "every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply." Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … "Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, . . . the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct."

SPROLES v. BRIDGE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2023

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Accordingly, the right to occupational liberty in a very similar context was clearly established such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Yocum v. United States Internal Revenue Service

586 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 1984

Strict construction of statutes that waive sovereign immunity extends to the statutory time limitations contained therein. Riggs v. … United States, 575 F.Supp. 738, 741, 742 (N.D.Ill.1983) (“Section 7609(b)(2) establishes a jurisdictional requirement, for it imposes a limit on suing the sovereign.”). See generally Coleman v.

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington

796 N.E.2d 236 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2003

Article 1, § 23 When an enactment is challenged under the Indiana Constitution, it stands before this Court "clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing." … The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution states, "[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally

RIDENER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2023

The Rideners respond that qualified immunity does not apply here because Defendants' conduct violated clearly established rights. [Dkt. 89 at 11.] … "To counter the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." Greene v.

Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt

448 N.E.2d 333 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 9, 1983

Ordinarily, though, plaintiff cannot appeal therefrom, since it does not qualify as an involuntary adverse judgment so far as the plaintiff is concerned. … That the legislative intent was to constrict individual liability, not expand it, is apparent from the very title of the section-"Immunity of public employees."

ARTHUR WALTER SEED CO. ETC. v. McCLURE, TREAS., ETC.

236 Ind. 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 2, 1957

When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. … The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption. " [ Emphasis supplied. ] ....

MEDRANO v. WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2024

In conclusion, Crew is entitled to qualified immunity from Medrano's excessive force claim because it was not clearly established that his conduct was unlawful. B. … Because it was not clearly established that Crew's actions constituted 7 "Qualified immunity is an individual defense available to each individual defendant in his individual capacity." Est. of Williams v.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Frank Purcell Walnut Lumber Co.

152 Ind. App. 122 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1972

After qualifying to do business in Kansas, Purcell purchased the assets of the Kansas corporation. … taking advantage of its domesticity, while still maintaining the same degree of tax immunity.

Velasquez v. Frapwell

994 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 6, 1998

Finally, even if the statute reflected an inconsistency in State policy, it does not even begin to approach the unmistakable clarity required to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Conclusion Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suits brought by individuals in federal court in enacting USERRA.

King v. Northeast Security, Inc.

732 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2000

Our standard of review is well established. … And we continue to believe that the City of Rome test is appropriate for determining whether a governmental unit qualifies for immunity for failure to dispatch emergency services (but only for that purpose).

State, Family & Social Services Administration v. Thrush

690 N.E.2d 769 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1998

States participating in the Medicaid program must establish reasonable standards for determining eligibility, including the reasonable evaluation of an applicant’s income and resources. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17); Glaser v. … does not qualify for Medicaid.

Loomis v. Ameritech Corp.

764 N.E.2d 658 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2002

Immunity Ameritech and the Attorneys argue they are immune from the Loomis-es' suit due to the rule against collateral attacks on judgments. … Mei- er set forth the immunity rule that "[alb-sent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's

Pierce v. State Department of Correction

885 N.E.2d 77 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2008

The DOC offers no funding to assist in obtaining the additional education needed to qualify for the special education license. … The authority to establish minimum requirements for licensure and the authority to establish minimum requirements for employment are not one and the same.

Gross Income Tax Division v. Fort Pitt Bridge Works

227 Ind. 538 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1949

It was, we think, clearly a single contract, whereby Fort Pitt committed and obligated itself for the entire result. … The distinction between an independent contractor and an agent is well established.

Pamela Slatten v. Hamilton County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 29, 2023

must demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board’s final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … Deadline for Recording under the “Homestead” Definition The homestead deduction applies to property that qualifies as a “homestead” for a particular assessment year.

Ada Brown v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

45 N.E.3d 1233 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2015

The Medicaid program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. (2001), was established by Congress in 1965. … To qualify for Medicaid, an applicant must meet both an income-eligibility test and a resources-eligibility test. Id.

GRIFFITH v. HENDRIX

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2025

The "difficult part" of this prong of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. … Holcomb is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See id. (affirming the denial of qualified immunity).

Lucas v. Estate of Stavos

609 N.E.2d 1114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1993

Recognizing "the possible harsh result" if a party is ruled indispensable, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Lomar concluded that under Louisiana law a party should be considered indispensable, "only after the facts clearly … Where paternity has been established, an illegitimate child may qualify as a dependent child within the meaning of our wrongful death statute. Hollingsworth, 442 N.E.2d at 1152 .