Case law

Rodenbeck v. Indiana, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Division of the Department of Environmental Management

742 F. Supp. 1442 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 19, 1990

Clearly, Ex Parte Young does not negate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, but merely prohibits a state official from using the name of the State to enforce a statute which is void because unconstitutional. … The Court clearly only held that Congress intended to override Eleventh Amendment immunity where a State was sued to recover cleanup costs under CERCLA.

Rhoades v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp.

574 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2008

Qualified immunity B. State claims barred by Ind.Code § 34 — 13—3—5(b) ANALYSIS I. Liability of PHMSC A. … Qualified immunity does not exist if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that defendants’ conduct violated a consti tutional right, and that constitutional right was clearly established at

Sims v. Kernan

72 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 1999

The defendants assert that the claims against them him are barred by the statute of limitations, that they are entitled to either absolute judicial immunity or qualified immunity, that court should abstain from exercising … Because the court concludes that Judge Brook did not violate the plaintiffs federally protected rights by entering the order described in the January 27, 1998 entry, it does not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Fairchild

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 10, 2026

Further, even if there had been a seizure, Richards would be protected by qualified immunity which, as explained above, “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The relevant inquiry when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity is into “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.,” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742.

Dunn v. Sigsbee

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2025

“[T]he dispositive question” in determining whether a right is “clearly established” is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 151 (quoting Mullenix v. … “Because a qualified immunity defense so closely depends on the facts of the case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

Boyd v. Smith

353 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 1973

Defendants also assert that they are immune from liability under § 1983. … Officials such as the present defendants retain only a qualified immunity, dependent on good faith action, and therefore immunity is no ground upon which to dismiss the complaint at this stage of the proceedings.

Pena v. East Chicago City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2024

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Evaluation of a qualified immunity defense is a two-step inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Caparaso v. Commissioner

907 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 1995

These cases clearly hold that the Internal Revenue Service is not an entity subject to suit. … It is well-settled that the United States is immune from suit except where Congress, by specific statute, has waived sovereign immunity. Larson v.

Ctr. for Wildlife Ethics, Inc. v. Clark

325 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2018

In order to determine whether or not removal was objectively reasonable, the Seventh Circuit has directed me to analogize the situation to a qualified immunity determination and to determine whether clearly established law … By contrast, if clearly established law did not foreclose a defendant's basis for removal, then a district court should not award attorneys' fees.").

Blanchard v. Hyatte

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2024

As an affirmative defense, qualified immunity provides more than a “mere defense to liability,” it provides “immunity from suit.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); see also Sinn v. … Clearly Established Constitutional Violation Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Wilburn v. St. Joseph Cnty. Juvenile Justice Ctr.

353 F. Supp. 3d 736 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2018

"The only immunities available in an official capacity suit are those that may be asserted by the governmental entity itself ( e.g. , Eleventh Amendment immunity or sovereign immunity)." DeVito v. … It is also "well established that if the original pleadings in an action effectively waive trial by jury under *743 Fed. R. Civ.

Benyoun

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that Defendants Gonzalez, Garcia, Leimbach, and Slivko are entitled to qualified immunity. … “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.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Johnson v. Herman

132 F. Supp. 2d 1130 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 31, 2001

Individual Defendants may receive qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Armstrong, 152 F.3d at 582 (citing Harlow v. … Therefore, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson also presents state law claims for false imprisonment and wrongful incarceration.

Bauer v. Doperalski

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 16, 2025

The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Bauer’s clearly established rights by complying with Indiana law. Qualified immunity shields Officer Doperalski’s actions.

Brandy

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2026

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Evaluation of a qualified immunity defense is a two-step inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Coleman v. Baker

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 2023

The Court analyzes the two prongs of qualified immunity in reverse order, first holding Officer Baker was entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established, then finding … As such, holding that the absence of a case directly on point alone is also sufficient to clearly establish a right would eviscerate qualified immunity.

Smith v. Stoner

594 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 1984

While Stoner, individually, may be entitled to a qualified immunity based upon good faith, the Office of Sheriff of Noble County, Indiana does not possess and is not entitled to any qualified immunity based upon good faith … The suit, insofar as it relates to Stoner individually, is controlled by the issue of Stoner’s entitlement to a qualified immunity based upon good faith. Harlow v.

Tyler v. Trustees of Purdue University

834 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2011

Coryell clearly possessed the requisite KSAs for the Executive Director, Administrative Services position.” … Because she has failed to establish that any exception to Purdue’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment’s applies, Tyler’s ADEA claim must fail. 4 D.

Palmiter v. Action, Inc.

548 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 8, 1982

, would be immune from attachment. … of MAP’s assets derive from grants made through the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under the HeadstartFollow Through Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2928 , et seq. (1976), and predecessor statutes authorizing funding for qualified

Rockrohr v. Norfolk Southern Corp.

797 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 18, 1992

CODE § 34-4-16.5-1, et seq. 2 She reasoned that the immunity at issue was not a “traditional immunity” such as absolute judicial immunity, which prevents an action from even accruing. … Rather, it was an immunity arising after accrual of a generally recognized right to recover.