Case law

Bailey v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District

240 Ind. 401 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1960

the invalidating facts; and its invalidity must be clearly shown.” … Title to the act here under attack clearly satisfies the requirements of Article 4, §19, supra, of the Indiana Constitution.

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

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.

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

SMITH v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity 'protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v.

JONES v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2021

"[B]ecause a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds." Reed v. … "'In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we look to (1) whether the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established.'" Broadfield v.

Michael T. McGill v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2020

Immunity from crime can not be predicated upon a merely weak or low order of intellect, coupled with a sound mind.”) … The Rules of Evidence require expert opinion testimony to be rendered by a qualified individual relying on established scientific principles. Ind. Evid. R. 702.

Arising out of Janiszewski v. Tonn & Blank, Inc.

714 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1999

However, in determining whether the answer might have that effect, the court is bound by the statement of the witness “unless it clearly appears from the examination and the circumstances before the court that the witness … incrimination is justified: [T]he court is authorized to determine whether the answer might criminate the witness, but that in determining this, the court is bound by the statement of the witness as to its effect unless it clearly

TAYLOR v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The district court went on to conclude that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because "an inmate's right to send and receive mail has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Thornburgh

John D. May v. Erik C. Allen (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2016

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or if the decision is contrary to law. Garrett v. … Specifically, May says the trial court erred in determining Judge Allen was immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

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.

Boyer v. Gildea

257 F.R.D. 488 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2009

Nonetheless, as articulated in Rule 26(b)(3), once the qualified work product privilege is established, it can still be overcome if the party seeking the materials shows: (1) a substantial need for the materials, and (2) … The Supreme Court has declined to rule whether this immunity is absolute, and, if not, the showing required to overcome a presumption of protection. Upjohn Co. v.

Marshall v. Town of Merrillville

262 F. Supp. 3d 733 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2017

Although the Plaintiffs’ Complaint expressly alleged only a violation of the First Amendment, the parties’ briefing on qualified immunity presented an “alternative legal characterization on a § 1983 claim as a Fourth Amendment … Indeed, the parties’ briefings at summary judgment both focused on whether the Defendant Officers were entitled to qualified immunity, which shows that both parties conceived of the original Complaint’s factual allegations

Fultz v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2023

“On a qualified immunity claim, the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the constitutional violation is clearly established or obvious; as alleged in this case, it was both.

Cruz Angeles v. State

751 N.E.2d 790 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2001

Angeles' attorney did not object to the trial court's establishment of Harris' qualifications. … An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating cireumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record. Carter v.

TAYLOR v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2020

Second, that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.”); Abbott v. … And the Court found no Seventh Circuit precedent clearly establishing such a right. Id.

Fraternal Order of Eagles 3988, Inc. v. Morgan County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

5 N.E.3d 1195 · Indiana Tax Court · Mar 18, 2014

will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The Indiana Board also determined that Eagles did not establish that it qualified for the fraternal beneficiary association exemption under Indiana Code § 27-11-7-4. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 40.)

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. v. PSI Resources, Inc.

148 F.R.D. 604 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1993

immunity to discovery similar to the attorney’s work product doctrine____” Grand Metropolitan, 1988 WL 130637 at *1. … "qualified immunity doctrine for strategic business documents.” .

Lindsey v. DeGroot

898 N.E.2d 1251 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2009

DeGroot Dairy, a farming operation that produces milk as well as crops, is clearly an agricultural operation for the purposes of the Indiana Right to Farm Act. A. … Specifically, the Lindseys claim that “[tjhere is clearly a dispute about the correct interpretation of the statute and its application to DeGroots actions.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20.

EINES v. MAYNARD

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

Qualified immunity "[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).