19 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Peavler v. BD. OF COM'RS MONROE CTY.green2 sentences2015Thus, under Peavler, the discretionary function exception of the ITCA insulates from liability only planning activity, characterized as “only those significant policy and political decisions which cannot be assessed by customary tort standards” and as “the exercise of political power which is held accountable only to the Constitution or the political process.” Id. at 45 . 2014Under Peavler , then, the discretionary function exception of the ITCA insulates from liability only planning activity, char acterized as “only those significant policy and political decisions which cannot be assessed by customary tort standards” and as “the exercise of political power which is held accountable only to the Constitution or the political process.” Id. at 45 . | 3 | 12 |
Blessing v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015In this way, the discretionary function exception articulates “a policy of preventing tort actions from becoming a vehicle for judicial interference with decision-making that is properly exercised by other branches of the government.” Blessing v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 1160, 1170 (E.D.Penn.1978) (interpreting FTCA discretionary function exception). [[Image here]] Immunity for discretionary functions, however, does not protect all mistakes of judgment. 1994In this way, the discretionary function exception articulates “a policy of preventing tort actions from becoming a vehicle for judicial interference with decision-making that is properly exercised by other branches of the government.” Peavler, 528 N.E.2d at 44 (quoting Blessing v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 1160, 1170 (E.D.Penn.1978) (interpreting FTCA discretionary function exception)). | 3 | 3 |
Greathouse v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2014In Greathouse v. Armstrong, 616 N.E.2d 364, 368 (Ind. 1993), our Supreme Court observed the following when considering a claim of immunity under the Act: If policy formulation included every act which involves any element of choice, judgment or ability to make responsible decisions, every act would then fall within the discretionary function exception. 1994As Justice DeBruler wrote for the Court, "If policy formulation included every act which involves any element of choice, judgment or ability to make responsible decisions, every act would then fall within the discretionary function exception." Id. at 368 . | 1 | 3 |
Pieper v. United States ex rel. Department of Defensegreen1 sentence2020Pieper v. United States, 713 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Voit v. Allen Countygreen1 sentence2001See also Voit, 634 N.E.2d at 769 (allegations of a failure to update, improve, or modernize a roadway directly implicate the discretionary function immunity provision of the ITCA). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. City of Stuartgreen2 sentences1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E 1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 1985) (discretionary functions immune because "coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance") (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla. 1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App. 1984) (purpose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N. | 1 | 1 |
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty.green2 sentences1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E 1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 1985) (discretionary functions immune because "coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance") (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla. 1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App. 1984) (purpose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloat
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 140 . 2017Id. at 140 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Scott v. City of Seymour
green
2 sentences2015We find Beloat’s reliance on Jackson and Scott v. City of Seymour, 659 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), to be unavailing. 2015This sort of policy decision is the sort of planning decision that is afforded immunity under the ITCA’s discretionary function immunity. [15] We find Beloat’s reliance on Jackson and Scott v. City of Seymour, 659 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), to be unavailing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence2001As we noted in Lee, the critical inquiry in determining whether a govern *448 mental entity is entitled to immunity under the ITCA is "whether the challenged act or omission is the type of function that the legislature intended to shield from liability." Lee, 682 N.E.2d at 579 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend
green
1 sentence1995Mullin, supra. Prior to 1988, the issue of whether a governmental entity was immune from liability under the discretionary function exception for claims of negligence in fighting a fire was a settled question. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Peavler v. Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences1995In construing the discretionary function immunity section of the Act, our supreme court adopted the "planning-operational" test in Peavler v. Board of Com'rs of Monroe County (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 40 , appeal after remand, (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1077 . 1995In construing the discretionary function immunity section of the Act, our supreme court adopted the "planning-operational" test in Peavler v. Board of Com'rs of Monroe County (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 40 , appeal after remand, (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1077 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
City of Crown Point v. Rutherford
green
1 sentence1995Peavler, 528 N.E.2d at 44 ; City of Crown Point, 640 N.E.2d at 752 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Whitney v. City of Worcester
green
2 sentences1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E 1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. State
green
2 sentences1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E 1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 1985) (discretionary functions immune because "coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance") (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla. 1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App. 1984) (purpose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ostendorf v. Kenyon
green
2 sentences1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1985) (discretionary functions immune because “coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance”) (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla.1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1984) (pur¡-pose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N.E 1988See also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 1985) (discretionary functions immune because "coordinate branches of government may not be subject to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance") (quoting Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indiana River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1022 (Fla. 1979)); Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App. 1984) (purpose of discretionary function exception is that courts are not an appropriate forum to review and second guess acts of government which involve exercise of judgment); Whitney v. City of Worcester, 373 Mass. 208 , 366 N. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.