Case law

Decatur County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Public Service Co.

159 Ind. App. 346 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1974

REMC’s contention that it was not a public utility and held that statutory language found in § 18a clearly established that the Legislature could see no distinction between an REMC and other public utilities and that the … That statute establishes the procedure whereby termination is.effected.

Lincoln R. Pickett v. State of Indiana

83 N.E.3d 717 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. … The instruction avoids the use of the term “serious violent felon” by naming the prior qualifying felony and citing the statute.

Salem Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitcomb

173 Ind. App. 183 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 1977

The answers to interrogatories and affidavits filed herein do not purport to establish or even suggest bad faith or malice on the part of defendants Whitcomb and Quinn. Conclusions of Law 1. … Bank contends that since there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and since the law is clearly in its favor, the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment in its favor. 2 Whitcomb and Quinn contend

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.

Bolin v. State

634 N.E.2d 546 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 1994

However, the repeated commission of similar erimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule. … The two arsons for hire were clearly similar. The repeated commission of similar crimes, however, is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.

Kellner v. General Refractories Co.

631 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 1986

If we also assume that the job was awarded to a less qualified male, then plaintiff would have established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. … It does not establish merit selection in employment. The nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to promote the plaintiff invalidates the assumption that she was qualified for the position in question.

Shiels v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

154 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 1957

It is this court’s view that the tardy acquisition of BLE membership by these two plaintiffs did not immunize them from the penalties prescribed by. the agreement. In the Rychilk case below (Rychilk v. … That decision is clearly inapplicable here. Nor does the decision in Radio Officers v. National Labor Relations Board, 347 U.S. 17 , 74 S.Ct. 323 , 98 L.Ed. 455 , apply here.

Natalie A. Harves, by Richard E. Harves and Karen Sue Cutter as Co-Personal Representatives v. Daniel Rusyniak, in his Individual Capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and Decatur County Division of Family Resources.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2023

the agency action was (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … [7] The Medicaid program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., was established by Congress in 1965.

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

Rogers v. Neil

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 30, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.

Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Department

855 N.E.2d 731 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2006

Clearly, the roadway obstruction was caused by bad weather. … These facts support a ruling of immunity.

In the Matter of Adoption of Lockmondy

168 Ind. App. 563 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1976

Therefore, considering the evidence most favorable to Jester, we must affirm if the evidence clearly, cogently, and indubitably establishes one of the statutory criteria for granting an adoption without consent. … Since the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment of the trial court establish clearly and cogently that Lockmondy failed to provide for the care and support of Stephen

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

Novak v. Apollo Printing and Thermography, Inc.

562 N.E.2d 1305 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1990

similar to those of the owner or manager of the establishment, but generally spends more than 50 percent of his time in production or sales work. … Again, the trial court's findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous.

Henderson v. Evansville Press, Inc.

127 Ind. App. 592 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 1957

judicial proceeding but if it was made by him while in the due course of his official acts the public welfare requires that a mantle of protection be thrown about him. *603 This is accomplished by extending to him absolute immunity … Only the evidence can establish that fact. Also, it cannot be determined from the “article” that the Judge’s statement was in fact made in the court room.

LEE v. BIRD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … "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

Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Inc.

718 N.E.2d 738 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1999

We also found that because “plaintiff submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers of … However, guardians are not protected un *746 der Indiana’s parental immunity doctrine. For policy reasons, parental tort immunity shields parents from most personal injury actions brought by minor children.

Butler University v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

77 Ind. Dec. 726 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1980

The United States Supreme Court long ago established in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. … Rouse, 75 U.S. 439 , 8 Wall. 439 , 19 L.Ed. 498 , hold directly and clearly that grants of tax immunity of the type here involved are protected by the federal constitution. In the Home of Friendless case, 75.

Dowd v. Harmon

229 Ind. 254 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1951

Our state determined to establish the Epileptic Village in 1905; the purpose of the institution is expressed in Section 1 of the Act as follows : “There shall be established in this state a village for epileptics, the object … In 1909 our state established the “hospital for insane criminals.”

Chester v. Purvis

260 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2003

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Purvis’ invocation of absolute immunity is also counterintuitive.