Case law

England v. City of Plymouth

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 23, 2022

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 person … clearly established at the time of injury.

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

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

Matter of GCI, Inc.

131 B.R. 685 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 1991

Debtor’s management and nonunion personnel are not immune either. … There is no evidence concerning the manner in which the company determined whether or not any particular employee was qualified under the standards and factors established by the contract. 3 Without this evidence, in light

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.

Bottos v. Beamer

399 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 16, 1973

Armed with this material, Plaintiff seeks to conclusively establish that Northeast Indiana is the national headquarters of the “crime syndicate.” … Investigation conclusively established that that officer had never been in the possession of such an automobile. 4.

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.

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.

Town of Porter v. Brandstetter

770 N.E.2d 832 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2002

When challenging the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause in Indiana, the following test was set forth in Collins v. … It was established that the members of the town council were all concerned with the growing needs of Porter. Appellant's App. p. 40.

Alarcon v. State

573 N.E.2d 477 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1991

Our supreme court rejected the pharmacist's claim of immunity based on his registered status. "There is no language in Ind.Code § 385-48-4-1 that prohibits the charging of a pharmacist with this offense." Id. at 511. … He argues that it is the Legend Drug Act, Ind.Code § 16-6-8-1 et seq., not the C.S.A., which is clearly intended to apply to physicians who have allegedly gone beyond the bounds of their professional practice.

Kentner v. Timothy R. Downey Ins., Inc.

430 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2006

Downey Is Immune Downey contends it is immune from suit under Indiana Code § 22-5-3-1(b) because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the authors of the letters made knowingly false statements. … Those facts clearly establish a legitimate reason for Downey’s July 17 letter, and a legitimate reason for it to have sent the letter to the persons in it.

Lee v. Weston

75 Ind. Dec. 25 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1980

by the American Board of Pathology for certification or a physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine in Indiana acting under the direction of such qualified physician to perform such autopsy, for which such … Ind.Code § 17-3-17-15 provides immunity to Weston for ordering the autopsy.

Empire Gas of Rochester, Inc. v. State

486 N.E.2d 1036 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1985

Therefore, if they qualify as real property they must qualify as either fixtures or appurtenances. Under the stipulated facts, the LP tanks cannot qualify as either fixtures or appurtenances. … Clearly, South Shore does not establish that assessing possessors of personal property is statutorily preferred over assessing the owners themselves.

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."

Termination of the Parent/Child Relationship of M.H.C. v. Hill

750 N.E.2d 872 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2001

Father also argues that his case qualifies under subsection (d) of the statute because no family services were offered to him due to his incarceration, even though he had completed the reunification requirements established … Paternity was established subsequent to the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. 4 .

MILLER v. PERRY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 21, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit unless their conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … "Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

MABES v. MCFEELEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 2023

immunity is not appropriate: qualified immunity does not protect actions that violate clearly-established rights, Anderson v. … In sum, a jury that agreed with the Mabes on key credibility disputes would be able to find violations of clearly established rights that occurred outside of any colorable claim to qualified or absolute immunity.

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.

Raymond Dale Berryhill v. Parkview Hospital

962 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2012

Pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), the clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review of facts determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the opportunity of … In its amended judgment, the trial court determined that Parkview was entitled to immunity from Berryhill‟s false imprisonment claim pursuant to Indiana Code Section 12-26-2-6 because Berryhill failed to establish that

Falls v. Town of Dyer

756 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 10, 1990

This court is well aware of the Seventh Circuit’s en banc determination in Rakovich that qualified immunity can be determined by the district court as a matter of law. … However, this court is constrained by the previous decision of the Court of Appeals and the mandate thereof and is therefore reluctant to bottom its decision on qualified immunity.