BD. OF COM'RS OF COUNTY OF HARRISON v. Lowe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the County is immune for its failure to adopt ordinances to erect or change the placement of stop signs or to reduce the speed limit at the intersection in question”
• holding the county was immune for its failure to adopt ordinances to erect or change the placement of stop signs- at the intersection
• noting that failing to erect a traffic control device is, in part, “a legislative act” that is entitled to immunity under (what is now) Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3(8)
• noting that failing to erect a traffic control device is, in part, “a legislative act” that is entitled to immunity under (what is now) Indiana Code section 34-13-3- 3(8)
• if immunity exists, the governmental entity simply is not liable and the degree of its culpability are not relevant considerations
• “Since [Harrison County] failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the absence of a question of fact regarding warning signs, the [plaintiffs] were not required to designate this issue or any relevant evidence in response to [Harrison County’s] motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).