Case law

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.

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.

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.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc.

412 N.E.2d 261 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1980

Taxpayer qualified for these “Vendor discounts” by purchasing and selling minimum quantities of the promoted product. … Testimony established that for Taxpayer to attempt to use a precise accounting measure would have been economically unjustifiable.

Eric D. Smith v. The Marion County Prosecutor's Office, Terry R. Curry, John G. Baker, Margrett Robb, Justice May, Justice Mathias, Justice Sullivan, Sr., and The Indiana General Assembly (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2015

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 30 2015, 9:32 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, … A determination as to a sentence modification is clearly within the bounds of the Marion County Prosecutor and his staff’s prosecutorial duties and is left to their discretion.

Ayres v. State

178 Ind. 453 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1912

Counsel for appellant admit that as to infants the offense is clearly defined in each case, but they argue that there could have been no reason for prohibiting handing samples of medicine to adults at their homes, when the … It is also urged that the act is invalid because in violation of article 1, §23, of the Constitution, prohibiting the granting of “privileges and immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all cit *458

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).

Walter v. State

208 Ind. 231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1935

The theory of the state, which was adopted by the trial court, and which affected many of the instructions, is here clearly disclosed. … That the legislature contemplated proof of a fraudulent intent is clearly indicated by the last clause of the statute, which seeks to establish insolvency within thirty days after the deposit is received as prima facie evidence

Ansley v. Ainsworth

4 Indian Terr. 308 · Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · Sep 25, 1902

The court below, as quoted in the brief of appellees, very clearly states why such a vested right could not exist, and we approve his conclusions. … established to admit of dispute that the Indian tribes residing within the territorial limits of the United.

ALBRECHTSEN v. PARSONS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2019

Albrechtsen’s sole argument on qualified immunity is that the caselaw conclusively establishes that reasonable suspicion is required before an individual may be detained. … Albrechtsen fails to point to law clearly establishing the alleged constitutional violation and therefore fails to defeat Defendants’ claim to qualified immunity.

Schmidt v. City of Indianapolis

168 Ind. 631 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1907

Where a municipal regulation is adopted, which would be lawful if intended for one purpose, and unlawful if for another, the presumption is that the purpose was lawful, unless the contrary clearly appears. Johnson v. … which upon the same terms are withheld to citizens residing outside of said city, and denies to citizens of other states privileges and immunities granted to citizens of Indiana.

State v. Lombardo

738 N.E.2d 653 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2000

Four federal circuits have held that the Federal Wiretap Act does not immunize inter-spousal wiretaps. See Heggy v. … Two federal circuits have held that Title III does immunize interspousal wiretaps. See Simpson v.

SHINNEMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL

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

"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. … Courts cannot define "clearly established law at a high level of generality" but rather must assess "whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established." Id. (cleaned up).

Wynn v. Indiana State Department of Public Welfare

316 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 1970

Plaintiffs allege no deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. … That the scope of § 1983 does encompass more than equal civil rights was established by the holding in Monroe v. Pape which involved police conduct during an unconstitutional search, arrest, and detention. 10 .

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Culver Educational Foundation

510 N.E.2d 206 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1987

Bernauer, who was qualified as both a remedial reading instructor and a librarian, worked as a temporary librarian in Maryland for six months in 1976. … court finds such finding, decision, or determination of such agency is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Reeve v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

510 N.E.2d 1378 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1987

Clearly, the conduct falls within the ruling of Vernon, supra. … In Miller, the failure to raise the defense of governmental immunity effected a waiver of it on appeal. The case of Frazier v.

Bennett v. Richmond

932 N.E.2d 704 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2010

Clearly he experiences some difficulty in terms of his information processing. … He also clearly presents symptoms of anxiety and depression, also frequently observed in traumatic brain injury patients.

Cowart v. State

756 N.E.2d 581 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2001

In reviewing an alleged violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, our supreme court has established a two-part test. … In Dowd, our supreme court clearly recognized that age classifications may be proper, even though the age classification in the statute at issue in Dowd was unconstitutional, and expressed the belief that penalties should