Case law

McVey v. State

863 N.E.2d 434 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2007

An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. … Here, the trial court clearly did not consider the affidavit to be worthy of credit.

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

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 .

Millington v. State

154 Ind. App. 42 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1972

Compelling incriminating testimony — Immunity from prosecution — Exceptions. … Unless the court finds that the issuance of the order would be clearly contrary to public interest, the witness shall comply with the order of the court.

Brosamer v. Mark

540 N.E.2d 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1989

As the appellees have not filed a brief, Brosamer is only required to establish prima facie error to obtain reversal of the judgment. See Sharp v. Jones (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 593 . … Railroad Retirement Act were protected even after they were paid to their beneficiaries: "[f}urther, the equal protection clause is not violated by the fact that benefits paid under a pension plan for public employees may be immune

Fielden v. State

437 N.E.2d 986 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1982

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and support the verdict of the jury; 5. … Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment on the evidence because the state failed to establish a prima facie case.

WILFORD v. VIGO COUNTY JAIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2023

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

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.

Zevely v. Weimer

5 Indian Terr. 646 · Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · Oct 19, 1904

The United States might sell land which it holds in a state, but it would be a strange contention that this gave the purchaser any immunity from local laws or taxation. … Miller, in discussing the powers of the Postmaster General, says: “Power to establish post offices and postroads is conferred upon Congress, but the policy of the government from the time the general post office was established

Witco Corp. v. City of Indianapolis

762 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 1991

Immunity The City claims that it is entitled to governmental tort immunity under three subsections of Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3. … Moreover, the day-to-day maintenance decisions of DPW’s real estate manager are even more clearly operational activities rather than planning.

Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Indiana

123 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 1954

Fair Board, against all actions at law, including the one here involved, unless the State through its legislature has clearly waived such immunity. … Here then, the state has clearly waived immunity and subjected itself to suit, at least to the extent as authorized in the Toll Road Commission Act.

Union Insurance v. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Insurance

74 Ind. Dec. 652 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1980

The legislature would be granting to particular citizens privileges and immunities which, upon the same terms, would not belong to all citizens. . … This lawsuit did purport to establish Union as a valid insurance company, but it does not estop this action.

Lenzo v. School City of East Chicago

140 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2001

Teachers who qualify to participate in the ERIP but who retire at 60 years of age receive only 48 months of benefits. … Teachers who would otherwise qualify to participate in the ERIP but who retire at 62 years of age or older receive no benefits.

Bible Institute Colportage Ass'n v. St. Joseph B. & T. Co.

118 Ind. App. 592 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1947

to establish' a charitable trust. … Clearly, there could be no pastor, nor *607 any attendants of a church which had passed out of existence.

Arnett Physician Group, P.C. v. Greater Lafayette Health Services, Inc.

382 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2005

In fact, the Seventh Circuit has clearly held that “the staffing decision at a single hospital was not a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.” BCB Anesthesia Care Ltd v. Passavant Mem’l Area Hosp. … Public expressions of opinion about competitors’ plans cannot provide the basis for an antitrust claim and such conduct is clearly lawful. See Schachar v.

Jason T. Myers v. Thomas D. Maxson Amy L. Hutchison Bruce W. Graham and Trueblood & Graham (In their Official and Individual Capacities) (mem. dec.)

51 N.E.3d 1267 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2016

When the moving party-asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and establishes that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of fact … Purdue Univ., 985 N.E.2d 35, 52-54 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (observing that communication with the entities and individuals in a case involving the ITCA without apparent regard to the ITCA’s notice requirement cannot qualify as

BROWN v. VIGO COUNTY JAIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified Immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court evaluates Officer Knopp's claim to qualified immunity with this in mind and exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test.

Noble County ex rel. Noble County Board of Commissioners v. Rogers

717 N.E.2d 591 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1999

The burden is on the moving party to establish two elements. Squires v. Utility/Trailers of Indianapolis, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 416, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). … Trial Rule 65(C) clearly states that a “governmental organization shall be ■ responsible for costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

Bartholomew County Assessor v. Housing Partnerships, Inc.

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 3, 2020

Accordingly, the Assessor contends that Housing Partnerships failed to present sufficient facts to establish that it qualified for a charitable purposes exemption, contending that the Indiana Board should have rejected … Tax Ct. 2017) (providing that the Tax Court will not reweigh the evidence unless the Indiana Board’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or it misapplies the law),

BALL v. PLASSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2023

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Dec. 15, 2020), in which the court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because "the law is clearly established that individuals in government custody have a constitutional right to be protected