Case law

Lundberg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 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.

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.

Dees v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 6, 2024

Reversing the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the Ninth Circuit found that officers violated a clearly established right when they used pepper spray against the protestors. … Affirming the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the Sixth Circuit found a clearly established violation of a constitutional right.

Stewardson v. Cass County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct … The law cautions against defining clearly established rights at a high level of generality. Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308. Mr.

Town of Beverly Shores v. Lujan

736 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 1989

The Court must examine whether jurisdiction exists pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and 5 U.S.C. § 702 . The next issue is that of sovereign immunity. … (Emphasis original) *940 Clearly, from the plain meaning of the statutory language it is apparent that Congress has conferred upon the Secretary broad discretion in the establishment and administration of the lakeshore.

Chatfield v. Richards

739 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 1990

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state … There is not a single case under either the Privileges and Immunities clause in Art.

Dyson v. Sposeep

637 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 27, 1986

Robins Co., 115 F.2d 212, 219 (7th Cir.1985), or if the plaintiff continued to litigate after his claim clearly became frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. Christianburg Garment Co. v. … Even under the established Section 1988 standards, however, the defendants are entitled to such an award. Mr. Dyson’s complaint was wholly frivolous. Mr.

Industrial Fuel & Asphalt of Indiana, Inc. v. United States

592 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 1984

Plaintiff operates a refinery qualifying as a “small refinery” under the above program. 10 C.F.R. § 211.62 . … Defendants argue that they are immune from liability in an action such as this by virtue of the above provision.

Boyer v. Gildea

257 F.R.D. 488 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2009

Nonetheless, as articulated in Rule 26(b)(3), once the qualified work product privilege is established, it can still be overcome if the party seeking the materials shows: (1) a substantial need for the materials, and (2) … The Supreme Court has declined to rule whether this immunity is absolute, and, if not, the showing required to overcome a presumption of protection. Upjohn Co. v.

Marshall v. Town of Merrillville

262 F. Supp. 3d 733 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2017

Although the Plaintiffs’ Complaint expressly alleged only a violation of the First Amendment, the parties’ briefing on qualified immunity presented an “alternative legal characterization on a § 1983 claim as a Fourth Amendment … Indeed, the parties’ briefings at summary judgment both focused on whether the Defendant Officers were entitled to qualified immunity, which shows that both parties conceived of the original Complaint’s factual allegations

Fultz v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2023

“On a qualified immunity claim, the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the constitutional violation is clearly established or obvious; as alleged in this case, it was both.

Wynn v. Indiana State Department of Public Welfare

316 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 1970

Plaintiffs allege no deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. … That the scope of § 1983 does encompass more than equal civil rights was established by the holding in Monroe v. Pape which involved police conduct during an unconstitutional search, arrest, and detention. 10 .

Marinov v. Trustees of Purdue University

804 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2011

Young exception to Purdue’s Eleventh Amendment immunity defense. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Nichols v. Wallace

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 26, 2025

of [the defendant's] qualified immunity defense,’ the facts asserted by the plaintiffs make out a violation of clearly established law.” … Thus, the court of appeals accepted “the plaintiffs’ (or the district court’s) version of the facts and ask[ed] whether the defendant [was] nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.”

McClure v. Doe

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’” Garcia v. … Since Defendants raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right; and, (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Rangel v. Reynolds

607 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 2009

There the court held that “[s]allying forth to collect the children is no different from seizing evidence on the authority of a warrant, which ... is covered by qualified immunity ...” Id at 1176. … Reynolds knowingly violated the law in initially investigating the Plaintiffs, she had an “objectively reasonable basis for her acts” and qualified immunity would apply. Id. at 1177.

Martin v. Goldsmith

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 30, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hernandez v. … Here, it is evident the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Jimerson v. Fort Wayne, City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2023

District courts have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis to tackle first. Person v. … Distinguishing between the two is not critical for the qualified immunity decision.

Jones v. Wolcott Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 2025

the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.” … Because no constitutional right has been established, Defendant Baer is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions during the encounter with Plaintiff. B.

Padula v. Leimbach

740 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2010

Qualified immunity, a primary defense to a claim under § 1983, shields officers from liability when they are “performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “[P]laintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional rights.” Clash v. Beatty, 77 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.1996).