Case law

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.

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.”

Seymour National Bank v. State

428 N.E.2d 203 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1981

, and it is clearly a matter that the Legislature may determine. … I concur with the majority in its conclusion that the scope of immunity established by the legislature in Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5 -3(7) (Burns 1980 Supp.) does not embrace conduct of a willful and wanton nature.

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

POINDEXTER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 2024

Legal Standards Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

In the Matter of Ra.S., Roy.S., and Rod.S. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and R.S. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2019

That the child has had no immunizations. 11. … That the child was behind on immunizations. 11.

K.M.K. v. A.K.

908 N.E.2d 658 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2009

Price, a licensed Indiana attorney, was hired by Father to *661 assist him in establishing paternity and gaining legal custody of A.M.K. … Price attached a proposed order establishing paternity and granting Father temporary custody pursuant to the paternity petition.

Shannon v. Bepko

684 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 1988

The ultimate determination, however, clearly raises a question of federal law. See Miller-Davis Co. v. … As this court has only recently observed, it is well established that [t]he threshold question under any Fourteenth Amendment due process claim ... is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a cognizable life, liberty,

CHEN v. LOVINS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 2023

Qualified immunity standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … While there may be plenty to criticize about how DCS handled this situation, there's no clearly established constitutional violation so Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Ms.

Lundberg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 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.

Carrell v. City of Portage, Ind.

609 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 29, 1985

Immunity — Scope of Employment With this standard of review in mind, I address the question of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). … The attempted rescue of Charlie Carrell was clearly outside the firemen’s statutory duties, which are exclusively fire-related.

COLEMAN v. KELLAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2023

Legal Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The principle of fair notice pervades the qualified immunity doctrine. Campbell, 936 F.3d at 545.

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

Doe v. Eagle-Union Community School Corp.

101 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2000

Id. at 1050 (concluding that IHO was entitled to absolute immunity as an adjudicator). … The IHO’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ Section 504 claims and his findings in relation to those claims were clearly correct on the administrative record.

Laird v. Eichold

10 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1858

The charge, as thus qualified, assumes that an innkeeper is responsible for all injuries not caused by the act of Providence, the public enemies, or the fault of the guest, whether the injury result from the carelessness … R. 553, it is held that proof by the innkeeper that there was no negligence in himself, or his servants, is not sufficient for his immunity.

Carter v. Carolina Tobacco Co., Inc.

873 N.E.2d 611 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2007

Indiana’s Qualifying Statute is codified at Indiana Code section 24-3-3-1 et seq. … Roger Cigarettes in Indiana To comply with the Qualifying Statutes enacted by the Settling States in April 2000, CTC established an escrow account with the Bank of America.

Z.M. v. Marion County Department of Child Services

911 N.E.2d 69 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2009

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. … By its own terms, In re E.E.S. characterizes itself as an anomaly in the established case law.

Courter v. Fugitt

714 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 1999

The motion for attorney’s fees must be filed not more than thirty days after entry of judgment, and the motion “must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney … A strict construction of the statute clearly contemplates that a qualified settlement offer can be made only to a party to the action.

Thomas J Herr v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2023

“Statutes come before us ‘clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.’” Id. (quoting Zoeller v. Sweeney, 19 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind. 2014)). … “Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 1377-78 (1964). The U.S.

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.