Legal Opinion · Dissent

Noble County v. Rogers

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 2001No. 57S03-0003-CV-218Published

1DissentBoehm, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I do not believe that a suit for wrongful enjoinment implicates the Tort Claims Act. Rather, I would conclude that, under Trial Rule 65(C), a governmental entity seeking a preliminary injunction voluntarily assumes the obligation to pay costs and damages arising from a wrongful injunction. As a result, the claim by a person wrongfully enjoined is not one arising in tort and the Tort Claims Act, which bars only claims "in tort," does not preclude recovery of those costs and damages from a governmental entity. More importantly, the majority's approach does nothing to…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Campbell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Mullin v. Municipal City of South BendIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  5. Brinkman v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1967

21 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