Case law

Marinov v. Trustees of Purdue University

804 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2011

Young exception to Purdue’s Eleventh Amendment immunity defense. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Hill v. Beghin

644 N.E.2d 893 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1994

We observe, however, that an examining physician's privilege from civil liability may be qualified when malpractice is demonstrated. … Immunity is a central consideration of this noble goal." Id. 148 Ind.App. at 271 , 265 N.E.2d at 249 (emphasis in original).

Colburn v. Trustees of Indiana University

739 F. Supp. 1268 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 15, 1990

Qualified Immunity: It takes no great discussion to show that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims under Harlow v. … Similarly, because it was not clearly established that professors at Indiana University had a property interest in being reappointed, promoted, or granted tenure, qualified immunity is also applicable to the due process claims

Van Bree v. Harrison County

584 N.E.2d 1114 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1992

Reflecting these common law principles, I.C. 34-4-16.5-3(3) provides immunity for temporary conditions caused by the weather, but does not provide for immunity when the condition is permanent or not caused by the weather. … In fact, the rule clearly states that the judge “shall inform counsel of its proposed action ...

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Estate of Wagers

833 N.E.2d 93 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2005

Further, the trial court's decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. In re Remonstrance, 769 N.E.2d at 631 . … However, after her exposure, she had brain, peripheral nerve, and immune function deficits consistent with toxic exposure to the herbicide.

Smith v. Wrigley

908 N.E.2d 354 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2009

The complaint establishes that Plaintiff is in a segregation unit. His supplemental material shows that all persons in the unit are subject to the same procedures and the actions are not being applied to him alone[.] … Prisoners have no right to be provided with Rogaine, and any lawsuit claiming such a right is clearly frivolous.

J.A.W. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Welfare

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1998

(footnote: 7) After establishing a presumption, we must balance indicators of immunity to see if they consistently support or contradict the presumptive immunity status. … (footnote: 15) Nevertheless, we think they would have qualified under the catch-all phrase before 1986.

Robertson v. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc.

960 N.E.2d 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2011

In Indiana it is well established that the right to maintain an action for wrongful death is purely statutory and did not exist at common law. … Privileges and Immunities Our test for analyzing a privileges and immunities challenge to a statute is laid out in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994).

T.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

971 N.E.2d 104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2012

“Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). … Rather, Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that “mentally retarded parents should be immune from losing their parental rights.” Appellant’s Brief at 18.

BANKHEAD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 18, 2026

"Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a defendant is entitled to dismissal unless a plaintiff comes forward with facts showing a constitutional violation and law showing his right was 'clearly established' … Bankhead alleges were therefore clearly established when they occurred in 2023. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hosler Ex Rel. Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc.

710 N.E.2d 193 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1999

We first noted the well-established principle that an action for wrongful death is purely statutory and did not exist at common law. … I, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which provides, “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms,

Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

493 N.E.2d 1229 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1986

Chapter 11 is concerned with the establishment of fire protection districts. … It is clearly the intention of the Legislature to recognize volunteer fire departments as instrumentalities of local government regardless of which of the five methods used.

Dick Sears v. Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency

117 N.E.3d 588 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2018

a claimant for grain delivered before the bar date as established in Ind. … In its Final Order, the Ultimate Authority observed: Clearly, law makers view [the Claimant Statute] as establishing a twelve month time bar as argued by IGBWLA in this case and they chose to extend that time frame during

Pendleton v. McCarty

747 N.E.2d 56 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2001

The phrase clearly refers to practices involving untruthfulness or deception. … This is clearly not the case.

Leslee Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, R. Scott Waddell, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. … A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Drake Ex Rel. Drake v. Mitchell Community Schools

628 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1994

Our supreme court held: The school personnel here clearly exercised ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the children under their authority. … Accordingly, although the School is immune under I.C. 34-4-16.5-38(11) for making an inadequate or negligent inspection of the grain elevator, the blanket immunity provided for inspections under this section cannot be stretched

McClure v. Doe

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” Garcia v. … Since Defendants raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right; and, (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Martin v. Goldsmith

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 30, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hernandez v. … Here, it is evident the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Alder

689 N.E.2d 1274 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1997

This evidence clearly indicates that Jackson suffered a pecuniary loss. … We question the ICRC’s continued expenditure of public funds to continually relitigate an established rule of law.

City of Terre Haute v. Deckard

243 Ind. 289 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1962

Previously the state and its municipalities had enjoyed complete immunity from liability in the performance of such activity unless, perhaps, this immunity was waived by the purchase of insurance by the municipality under … established, without limitation, in the later act.