Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Anderson v. Weatherford

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 14, 1999No. 48A04-9811-CV-534Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBaker, Judge

While I agree with the majority’s holding that Weatherford independently stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and agree that his claim against the City and Chief Leonard should be dismissed, I respectfully dissent from its conclusion that the Indiana Tort Claims Act (the Act) provides immunity for Sergeant Seig, Officer Clendenen, Officer Crouse and Terry Ri-chwine (referred to collectively as “the officers”). I make the initial observation as a life-long Hoosier that, at least in Indiana, no one can question that removing someone from a regional basketball game in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Greathouse v. ArmstrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Simpson's Food Fair, Inc. v. City of EvansvilleIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Quakenbush v. LackeyIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Kemezy v. PetersIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Henshilwood v. Hendricks CountyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API