Case law

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

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.

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.

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.”

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Indiana Department of Insurance

868 N.E.2d 50 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2007

Further, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id. … Unlike the December 1, 2004 documents, this Memorandum and attached information clearly establish the amount and methodology used to calculate the 2004 True-Up Assessment, now disputed by Sun Life.

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.

Cain v. State

261 Ind. 41 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1973

The application of this principle in criminal cases is well-established in this state and many others. … In other words, defendant wishes us to admit evidence made immune from cross-examination by his own trial strategy. State v. Beach (1896), 147 Ind. 74 , 43 N. E. 949 ; Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company v.

Abernathy v. Gulden

46 N.E.3d 489 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2016

As such, every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome-by a contrary showing. … The added subsection 4(e) merely established that even though the *497 application is triggered by the judgment of the third qualifying offense, the dates of the offenses are to be used to calculate whether the qualifying

Reed v. State

748 N.E.2d 381 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2001

Nonetheless, the record establishes that the State’s continued and vigorous opposition to Reed’s efforts to depose Williams and its refusal to grant use immunity until moments before Williams took the … At the beginning of the interview, the prosecutor stated: The State of Indiana is prepared to file a request for immunity, use immunity, which guarantees immunity to Mr.

GASAWAY v. PLASSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 5, 2023

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

ROBINSON v. COCHRAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2025

Officer Cochran asserts that he is entitled to summary judgment through qualified immunity. … "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'"

Parents for Quality Education with Integration, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Community Schools Corp.

662 F. Supp. 1475 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 1987

PQEI alleges that the Fort Wayne Community Schools Corporation (FWCS) established and has maintained a racially dual school system. … ELEVENTH AMENDMENT The history of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence clearly illustrates that a State and its agencies are treated differently, for the purposes of immunity, than state officials sued in their official capacity

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.

CALAUTTI v. SHANAHAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 2019

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Because the Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

WILLIAMS v. LIEBEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 2025

"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 … This "clearly established" standard ensures "that officials can 4 The Court need not address Chaplin Wence's and Mr. Liebel's qualified immunity arguments.

Frank v. Trustees of Orange County Hospital

530 N.E.2d 135 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1988

Frank argued the information sought would establish that the medical staff’s decision was based on nonprofessional grounds thereby defeating the defense of justification. … This section clearly and unambiguously prohibits the disclosure of any content of communications to or the determination of a peer review committee.

Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Development Commission

941 N.E.2d 1055 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2010

We further conclude, however, that the record does not clearly establish that the MDC has issued a final appealable decision in this case, denying us and the trial court the power to address the merits of Lightpoint's appeal … Quite simply, interpreting the language in the way Lightpoint urges would produce a result which would run *1061 counter to the General Assembly's clearly expressed intent to establish- the MDC as the single planning and

J.A.W. v. State, Marion County Dept. of Public Welfare

687 N.E.2d 1200 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1997

A court should (1) establish a presumption as to a public entity’s status, (2) balance five general “[ijndicators of immunity,” 513 U.S. at 44 , 115 S.Ct. at 402 , and, if these indicators point *1204 in different directions … indicators of immunity to see if they consistently support or contradict the presumptive immunity' status.

Flanner House of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Flanner House Elementary School, Inc., Aliza Anderson, Chi Blackburn, Lorri Bryant, Dr. Cathi Cornelius, Robert Dotson, Brooke Dunn, Frances L. Hudson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2017

This Court should nullify a statute on constitutional grounds only where such result is clearly rational and necessary. Id. … schools and their organizers violates the equal privileges and immunities clause.

Summers v. State

495 N.E.2d 799 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1986

Clearly, these are matters beyond the scope of the knowledge and experience of the average juror. … Viewed from the proper perspective of appellate review, the evidence recited in our discussion of Issue One clearly was sufficient to establish that Summers was the driver of the truck.