Case law

Town of Longview v. City of Crawfordsville

68 L.R.A. 622 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1905

It is insisted by appellant that said act is in conflict with the Constitution of this State,because it is a special law, and because it grants privileges ;and immunities to citizens and a “class of citizens” which, ■upon … voters of the town and a majority of the qualified voters of the city shall vote in favor thereof at the election to be held for that purpose.

KANABLE v. RAJOLI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2023

Qualified Immunity The defendants also assert a qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability unless they "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Hutcherson v. State

269 Ind. 331 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1978

The remark was clearly qualified as being a “simple explanation” and was not an instruction. … It is clearly established that a person may not be twice punished for a single offense arising from one set of operative circum *340 stances. Bean v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 528 , 371 N.E.2d 713 ; Thompson v.

Burnett v. State

815 N.E.2d 201 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2004

An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances before the court. Id. … And only one characteristic is necessary to qualify an individual as an expert. Id. As such, a witness may qualify as an expert on the basis of practical experience alone. Id.

Fry v. State

63 Ind. 552 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1878

It- undertakes to grant to carriers- of passengers privileges and immunities winch it does not extend to other citizens upon the same terms, or upon any terms whatever.” … It must appear very clearly, that the legislation is in conflict with some express provision of the constitution, or the statute will be upheld.

F. W. Means & Co. v. Carstens

428 N.E.2d 251 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1981

Under the above prescribed standard of review, we find the record clearly establishes that a genuine issue of the material fact of damages exists. 14 Summary judgment, therefore, was erroneously granted arid we reverse. … Secondly, because the injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy it is granted with great caution, only when the necessity and reason therefor are clearly established, and only where the law does not provide full redress

Steinback v. State ex rel. Madison Township

38 Ind. 483 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1872

His term commenced as soon as he qualified, and the liability of his sureties commenced at the time when he qualified. … This doctrine has been established from the earliest period, and repeatedly confirmed, by an unbroken current of decisions down to the present time.”

Warrick County Commissioners v. Warrick County Council

706 N.E.2d 579 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1999

To be qualified for the position, the executive director must have training and experience in the field of planning and zoning. … To be qualified for the position, an executive director must have training and experience in the field of planning and zoning.

Charles v. Holcomb

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2022

Warden Neal alternatively argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established case law holding an inmate has a constitutional right to the use of their preferred pronouns. … 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.

Elliott v. Allstate Insurance Co.

859 N.E.2d 696 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2007

Clearly, emotional trauma can be as disabling to the body as a visible wound. … Thus, clearly, the policy covers more than merely physical harm.

Lach v. Lake County

621 N.E.2d 357 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1993

Focusing on the first prong of the test, this Court in Campbell clarified the type of speech which will qualify as speech "on a *359 matter of public concern about which free and open debate is vital to the decision making … Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government; this does not require a grant of immunity for employee grievances not afforded by the First Amendment

DAVIS v. DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF TONY SKINNER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2023

"The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 … "A state official is protected by qualified immunity 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 the

Wade v. State

270 Ind. 549 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1979

As to the contention that the confession was obtained through the use of promises of immunity, the evidence again fails to support the appellant’s position. … Appellant next submits that the spent bullet and casing were erroneously admitted in evidence as the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody.

Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. City of Muncie

459 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1984

The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous. … The record in this case does not indicate that Milton Smith sufficiently established a prima facie case of racial discrimination against the Pension Board.

STARK v. RUTHEFORD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2020

Qualified immunity protects public officials like these Defendants from civil liability under § 1983 unless the official’s conduct violated “a clearly established” constitutional right. Betker v. … Qualified immunity consists of two separate but related inquiries: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

In Re Miller

435 B.R. 561 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2010

. § 522 (d) and has established its own statutory exemptions; See, Matter of Salzer, 52 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir.1995). … Although this passage is clearly dicta, it is consistent with the decision in Tenneco and with ERISA’s legislative history.

Conwell v. Beatty

667 N.E.2d 768 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1996

There being no defamatory statement, we do not reach the Howard County defendants’ defenses of absolute privilege, qualified privilege or immunity. II. … Even if we assume that Cappoli’s statement was false, Conwell has not established the elements of malicious prosecution.

Hunter, Jr. v. Long

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2019

“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 … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time of the events underlying this case that (1) a police officer cannot continue to use force once a suspect is subdued, (2) a police officer cannot

Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessor

998 N.E.2d 764 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 8, 2013

The Assessor, however, maintained that the classification of Kildsig's land was proper because, unlike his neighbor, he did not use his land for any qualifying agricultural purpose. … demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determination is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

SHINNEMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 3, 2023

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v. Pauly. 137 S. … issue was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented."