Case law

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.

Dyson v. Sposeep

637 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 27, 1986

Robins Co., 115 F.2d 212, 219 (7th Cir.1985), or if the plaintiff continued to litigate after his claim clearly became frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. Christianburg Garment Co. v. … Even under the established Section 1988 standards, however, the defendants are entitled to such an award. Mr. Dyson’s complaint was wholly frivolous. Mr.

Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital

415 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1981

In light of the remaining assertions in the Whitakers’ “verified objection,” there was no competent evidence presented to establish that Dr. Tutunji and Associates were not qualified health care providers. … Before a statute will be declared repugnant to the Constitutions its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent...

Whittle v. State

542 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1989

When the State made the offer of immunity to Lockhart, the trial court indicated he would grant use immunity and order Lock-hart to testify. … Considering that the evidence on the events leading up to the shooting clearly established hostility between the Iron Horsemen and the Outlaws, it is doubtful counsel's stipulation to that fact prejudiced Whittle.

Town of Beverly Shores v. Lujan

736 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 1989

The Court must examine whether jurisdiction exists pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and 5 U.S.C. § 702 . The next issue is that of sovereign immunity. … (Emphasis original) *940 Clearly, from the plain meaning of the statutory language it is apparent that Congress has conferred upon the Secretary broad discretion in the establishment and administration of the lakeshore.

City of Indianapolis v. Robinson

427 N.E.2d 902 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1981

Since Ulrich was particularly well qualified to render an opinion on the speed of an airborne object, and was the only witness on this critical issue, we believe the exclusion of his testimony was clearly an abuse of discretion … The above evidence clearly supports the measurements incorporated into the hypothetical questions.

The Lake of the Woods of Marshall County Conservancy District v. Remonstrators Against Establishment of the Conservancy District

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2026

The Petitioners now appeal and present four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the court clearly erred when it dismissed the petition to establish the District. … If a given freeholder qualifies as set forth in this section for at least two (2) freeholds, the freeholder’s signature shall be counted for each freehold.

HENDERSON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government 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.” … The Court’s qualified immunity “analysis hinges on whether reasonable officers under the circumstances would know their conduct violated a clearly established right.” Id. at *4; see also Jenkins v.

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.

In re the Paternity & Maternity of Infant R.

922 N.E.2d 59 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2010

Clearly, this would involve more than simply an affidavit or a stipulation between the affected parties. … Because we have found equitable relief to be appropriate, we need not address contentions with regard to the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. I. § 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

McFarland v. State

269 Ind. 527 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1978

The finding of the trial court here clearly revolved around the credibility of witnesses which is within the province of the trier of fact. There was no abuse of discretion. n. … It has long been established that there is a presumption that counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Roberts v.

SWEAT v. NORTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Officer Norton asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions. … "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

Dees v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 6, 2024

Reversing the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the Ninth Circuit found that officers violated a clearly established right when they used pepper spray against the protestors. … Affirming the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the Sixth Circuit found a clearly established violation of a constitutional right.

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington

768 N.E.2d 490 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2002

Before an ordinance will be declared repugnant to the Constitution, its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent. Id. … The City argues that through its zoning power it has the right to establish residential zones. It contends that "family composition rules are essential" to zoning for residential zones. Appellee's Brief at 10.

Winona Memorial Hospital, Ltd. Partnership v. Kuester

737 N.E.2d 824 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2000

If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial interpretation is inappropriate and the courts will adopt the meaning clearly expressed. … Credentialing, therefore, is neither clearly within the Act nor outside of it. For this reason, we hold that the Act is ambiguous with regard to whether the physician credentialing process is included within its ambit.

Industrial Fuel & Asphalt of Indiana, Inc. v. United States

592 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 1984

Plaintiff operates a refinery qualifying as a “small refinery” under the above program. 10 C.F.R. § 211.62 . … Defendants argue that they are immune from liability in an action such as this by virtue of the above provision.

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

Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville-Vanderburgh County

994 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2013

During the trial, Rollett stipulated that the camps do not qualify for subdivision pursuant to the current standards set forth in the VCC. … We will set aside the findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.

Schultz v. LaBine

428 N.E.2d 1284 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1981

Clearly, the constitution does not require us to transform the possibility of further prosecution in this or another jurisdiction into a source of absolute protected silence on the part of the witness. … excluding the answers thus elicited, in any subsequent criminal case. * * * * * * It exempts no one from the consequences of a crime which he may have committed, but only from the necessity of himself producing the evidence to establish

Tyler Flota v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

The State moved for the trial court to grant Flota immunity. The court granted Flota immunity and advised him that he must answer questions and provide items that are requested. … Flota was granted immunity and ordered by the court to testify under a subpoena.