Case law

Miller v. Miller

55 Ind. App. 644 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1914

There is no qualifying term such as “disinterested” or “impartial.” … It is sufficient if the evidence as a whole clearly establishes that such witnesses are in fact resident freeholders and householders of the State, and establishes also “to the satisfaction of the court trying the cause”

WHITE v. CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2023

The State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established law. [Filing No. 91 at 7.] … Brenden White responds that the State Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.

Burke v. Bennett

907 N.E.2d 529 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2009

In contrast, several of the statute's other provisions clearly refer to a person's past conduct as grounds for disqualification. … Clearly this disqualifier is inapplicable to establish ineligibility in a post-campaign election contest.

Thomas v. State

965 N.E.2d 70 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2012

Here, when Orue testified, her immunity agreement with the State was disclosed to the jury. … When asked if she had any reason to think she would receive anything other than immunity in exchange for testifying, she replied that she did not.

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.

Leathers v. Johnson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2020

“To overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … that it would not violate clearly established rights.’”

Trustcorp Mortgage Co. v. Metro Mortgage Co.

867 N.E.2d 203 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 30, 2007

To abide by the policies and procedures established by the PURCHASER for loans originated under this Agreement; 4. … or defects in an appraisal submitted to support a mortgage loan and/or awareness or knowledge of the failure of the mortgage loan to qualify under Fannie Mae guidelines in order for Trustcorp to establish that Metro breached

Brown v. Pitzer (In Re Brown)

249 B.R. 303 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 2, 2000

Fortunately, the language of the decree clearly provides the answer to that question, a conclusion reinforced by Indiana law. … Congress established ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., to provide a detailed federal framework for the regulation of employee pension and welfare plans.

MANERY v. LEE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2024

Qualified immunity grants "no license to lawless conduct"; rather, it focuses on "the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law." Id. at 818– 19. … Where a factual dispute precludes resolution of the first inquiry, as it does here, an officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established.

In Re: The Paternity of K.H., Rebekah Harris (Mother) v. Jon Cochran (Father)

116 N.E.3d 504 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2018

The trial court qualified Walker as an expert and admitted the psychological examination over Mother’s objection that Walker was not qualified to administer the MMPI. … We shall not set aside the findings or a judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Id.

Kindred v. State

514 N.E.2d 314 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1987

Furthermore, Kindred clearly acquiesced in any irregularity when he submitted to the jurisdiction of the second special judge by obtaining rulings on his motions. … There clearly was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Kindred unreasonably delayed filing for post-conviction relief under cireumstances permitting diligence.

Jones v. Wolcott Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 2025

the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.” … Because no constitutional right has been established, Defendant Baer is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions during the encounter with Plaintiff. B.

Antwoin Richmond v. Drew Adams, Melissa Pine, and John Doe 1 (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2018

Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2005) (no absolute judicial immunity for parole officers’ actions involving “day-to-day duties in the supervision of a parolee”). … [12] Richmond’s amended complaint, filed on February 2, 2018, clearly indicates that the Defendants are being sued in their “official and personal capacity”.

Johnson, Jr. v. Murray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2025

Qualified immunity Lastly, Murray argues that dismissal is proper because qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “[T]he dispositive question” in determining whether a right is “clearly established” is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 151 (quoting Mullenix v.

DHANI v. HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2025

Dhani's rights, but if they did, those rights were not clearly established, so the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. Mr. … Dhani cites two cases holding that qualified immunity does not protect officials who violate clearly established rights, but he does not provide cases analogous to Defendants' conduct here.

Ellenwine v. Fairley

818 N.E.2d 961 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

When the moving party asserts the statute *964 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 … As the wife of Lawrence, she clearly was a 'relative.'

Tesfamariam v. Woldenhaimanot

956 N.E.2d 118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2011

that her interpreter was qualified. … Here, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to establish that Mother’s interpreter was qualified and by failing to administer an oath to her interpreter to provide an accurate translation.

Hansford v. State

490 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1986

Cass' broken ribs would qualify as bodily injury under either the robbery or the burglary statute. Ind.Code § 35-41-1-2 (Burns 1979). … Presumably defendant wished the jury to conclude that had the State witnesses not been granted immunity from prosecution they might. have been prosecuted for the immunized offenses which in turn might have enabled the State

Hamilton County Assessor v. Charles E. Duke

69 N.E.3d 567 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 3, 2017

Duke’s real property qualified for an educational purposes exemption, but did not qualify for a religious purposes exemption. … Accordingly, the Indiana Board’s finding of fact that Little Lamb provided activities that fostered an atmosphere of education cannot establish the property’s predominant use without a time-usage comparison.

RIGHTSELL v. INDIANA STATE POLICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2021

As this is clearly an unresolved question of law,2 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by the Estate was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional intrusion. … Finally, Defendants maintain that they "are entitled to qualified immunity" because the Estate can neither "say that it was clearly established at the time [Mr.] Rightsell was shot that [Supt.]