Case law

Morningstar v. Aguilera

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 2025

reasonable amount of force to effectuate his arrest and, regardless, (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.

Rynearson v. First Nat. Bank of Rochester

602 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 1985

It is a well established principle of law in this circuit that to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must establish a defendant’s personal responsibility for the claimed deprivation of a constitutional right … However, such exhibit clearly shows that the disclosures were made on August 16, 1978.

Brown v. Purdue University North Central

91 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2015

Oct. 18, 2012) (Title II claim not barred by sovereign immunity); with Rittenhouse v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 628 F.Supp.2d 887, 894-95 (S.D.Ill.2008) (Title II claim barred by sovereign immunity); Doe v. … Even if this court found that defendants were not immune from suit under the ADA, plaintiffs ADA claim would fail, as explained below.

Nur v. Hyatte

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.

Hill v. Northwest Indiana Major Crimes Task Force

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

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even if a right is potentially violated, though, an official is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id.

Malone

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.

Garcia

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2026

Hess’s constitutional rights, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to evaluate whether each right was clearly established on February 15, 2019, considering the particular circumstances of the case. … “A constitutional right is clearly established for qualified- immunity purposes [when the] contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Boussom v. City of Elkhart

567 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1983

The judicial construction of I.C. 18-1-11-3 since its inception clearly establishes that the Mayor’s powers of removal did not extend to the removal of policemen and firemen. … The standards regarding demotions and discharges of policemen and firemen were clearly established by January 1, 1980.

Mirach

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2026

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable “for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because Officer Eber is qualifiedly immune from civil liability, and qualified immunity is no “mere defense” but total “immunity from suit,” Officer Eber is entitled to summary judgment. Mitchell v.

Tracy v. Bittles

820 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity In the recent decision of Plajeas v. Drinski, 811 F.Supp. 1356 (N.D.Ind.1993), Judge Lozano evaluated a § 1983 action based on the Fourth Amendment and the excessive use of force. … functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Varela v. City of Fort Wayne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In other words, “a right is clearly established when it is defined clearly enough to put officers on notice of their duties under the circumstances they confront....

Keammerer v. Eldridge

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Keammerer v. Eldridge

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hudson v. Garab

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2021

Feller is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory … or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.

552 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 1982

In addition, the defendants argue that a qualified immunity exists for the defendants because of their allegedly good faith actions in this matter. … However, such a matter is clearly a question of fact, not law.

Betts

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 13, 2026

Betts to show that qualified immunity did not apply after Defendants raised it in their motion for summary judgment, he offered no response in his briefing. … Nor does he make any argument here that Defendants’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010).

Yocum v. United States Internal Revenue Service

586 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 1984

Strict construction of statutes that waive sovereign immunity extends to the statutory time limitations contained therein. Riggs v. … United States, 575 F.Supp. 738, 741, 742 (N.D.Ill.1983) (“Section 7609(b)(2) establishes a jurisdictional requirement, for it imposes a limit on suing the sovereign.”). See generally Coleman v.

Lenzo v. School City of East Chicago

140 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2001

Teachers who qualify to participate in the ERIP but who retire at 60 years of age receive only 48 months of benefits. … Teachers who would otherwise qualify to participate in the ERIP but who retire at 62 years of age or older receive no benefits.

Bray v. Shiparski

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

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for damages when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … But qualified immunity requires the plaintiff to produce a case clearly establishing the right in a particularize sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.

Carrell v. City of Portage, Ind.

609 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 29, 1985

Immunity — Scope of Employment With this standard of review in mind, I address the question of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). … The attempted rescue of Charlie Carrell was clearly outside the firemen’s statutory duties, which are exclusively fire-related.