Case law

Palin v. Indiana State Personnel Department

698 N.E.2d 347 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1998

In this statement, Governor Bayh expressed the need to give IDEM “the ability to attract and retain a highly qualified professional and technical staff.” Record at 120. … Governor Bayh expressed the need to recruit and retain highly qualified professional and technical employees.

Moss v. Putnam County Hospital

860 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2011

“The immunity provided in Ind.Code § 22-4-17-9 becomes available after an individual is ‘compelled after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination to testify or produce evidence....’” Penny v. … Stewart, 157 Ind.App. 74 , 298 N.E.2d 509, 512-13 (1973) (discussing the statute’s creation of a qualified privilege for employers in libel and slander actions).

Klein v. Mele

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

Qualified Immunity In addition, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, which “shields public officials ‘from undue interference with their duties and from … In addition, even if the law was clearly established, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he relied on the advice of counsel.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Golden Rule Insurance Co.

639 N.E.2d 339 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1994

A "qualified long term care policy" is defined as a "policy that meets the requirements established by the department of insurance under IC 27-8-12-7.1." 1.0. 12-10-9-8(b). … Thus, not only must the policy meet the definition of a long term care policy contained in 1.C. 27-8-12-5, it must meet any additional requirements established by the Department before the policy may be qualified under the

Noojin v. State

730 N.E.2d 672 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2000

These two pieces of testimony presented hearsay that established (1) Noojin was at the Flowers’ apartment shortly before their deaths and (2) Michalak’s statement that Noojin was the killer. … The Court has explained this standard as “not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.” Prowell v.

McGill v. Duckworth

726 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 1989

They raise four arguments for immunity under Indiana’s Tort Claims Act. … Walker, 552 F.2d 193 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 932 , 98 S.Ct. 1507 , 55 L.Ed.2d 530 (1978), the district court had dismissed a complaint on the basis of what would now be considered qualified immunity.

Toni Ball v. Clifton Jones

52 N.E.3d 813 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

Ball has not designated any evidence establishing that Detective Jones acted on his own initiative or with no intention to perform the service for which he was employed. … Detective Jones’ actions are clearly within the scope of his employment as an IMPD officer and therefore are cloaked with immunity under ITCA.

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.

DENNY v. WIGGINS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … To withstand the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to show that (1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the particular right violated was “clearly established” at the

MCQUAY v. LITTLEJOHN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2021

Discussion Warden Brown seeks summary judgment arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. McQuay's claim. … Qualified immunity shields a state official from liability unless the plaintiff shows "(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of

KS&E Sports and Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels

66 N.E.3d 940 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2016

Clearly, as a member of the general public, Runnels was among the persons intended to be protected by these statutes. … This is a quintessential immunity provision.

Reed v. Blinzinger

639 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 1986

The State also asserts qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. This defense is usually applicable in an action for damages rather than one for equitable relief. See Gomez v. … The Court finds this evidence inconclusive to establish congressional intent to apply the sibling requirement to Medicaid eligibility.

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Sharp

732 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2000

Accordingly, we held that NIP-SCO was immune from liability for its allegedly negligent acts. … To the contrary, the chain-of-command established by the Act would be jeopardized by such a duty, as that duty would elevate the role of NIPSCO to being co-equal with that of the Town of Highland, an effect clearly not intended

Child v. Gary City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 21, 2021

With respect to qualified immunity, it is clearly established that an officer cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to execute an arrest. Phillips v. Cmty. Ins. … Qualified immunity protects officers even when they err, so long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Ashley T. Tucker v. Michelle R. Harrison, M.D.

973 N.E.2d 46 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2012

He may be qualified to offer a mathematical opinion, but he was not shown to be qualified to offer a medical opinion as to causation. Tucker is required to show that Dr. … The trial court did not clearly err in excluding the proffered bias testimony. III.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 3, 2021

Qualified immunity is a question of law based on a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the alleged conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time … General assertions are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. City of Escondido, 139 S. Ct. at 503; Anderson, 72 F.3d at 523-24.

Drake v. Lawrence

524 N.E.2d 337 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1988

Drake counter-argues that the information clearly stated it was for "theft-possession of stolen property" and that he testified at the probable cause hearing that Griffin and his accomplice stole the items and then sold them … Fogarty (2nd Cir.1986), 806 F.2d 380 (in action for false imprisonment plaintiff need not show prior proceedings terminated in his favor but a conviction is deemed to establish probable cause and will bar any recovery.) 4

Morrison v. Sadler

821 N.E.2d 15 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2005

Given the high degree of deference we accord to legislative classifications, the Plaintiffs have not established that this particular classification violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the: Indiana Constitution … First, the Plaintiffs must establish that Article 1, § 1 is capable of independent judicial enforcement.

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.

Arthur Walter Seed Co. v. McClure

236 Ind. 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 2, 1957

When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. … The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption.” [Emphasis supplied.]