Case law

Klein v. Mele

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

Qualified Immunity In addition, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, which “shields public officials ‘from undue interference with their duties and from … In addition, even if the law was clearly established, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he relied on the advice of counsel.

McGill v. Duckworth

726 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 1989

They raise four arguments for immunity under Indiana’s Tort Claims Act. … Walker, 552 F.2d 193 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 932 , 98 S.Ct. 1507 , 55 L.Ed.2d 530 (1978), the district court had dismissed a complaint on the basis of what would now be considered qualified immunity.

Child v. Gary City of

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

With respect to qualified immunity, it is clearly established that an officer cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to execute an arrest. Phillips v. Cmty. Ins. … Qualified immunity protects officers even when they err, so long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 3, 2021

Qualified immunity is a question of law based on a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the alleged conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time … General assertions are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. City of Escondido, 139 S. Ct. at 503; Anderson, 72 F.3d at 523-24.

Leathers v. Johnson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2020

“To overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … that it would not violate clearly established rights.’”

Kellner v. General Refractories Co.

631 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 1986

If we also assume that the job was awarded to a less qualified male, then plaintiff would have established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. … It does not establish merit selection in employment. The nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to promote the plaintiff invalidates the assumption that she was qualified for the position in question.

Johnson, Jr. v. Murray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2025

Qualified immunity Lastly, Murray argues that dismissal is proper because qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “[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.

Martin v. Superintendent

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2020

“To overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … that it would not violate clearly established rights.’”

Rogers v. Neil

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

Parents for Quality Education with Integration, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Community Schools Corp.

662 F. Supp. 1475 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 1987

PQEI alleges that the Fort Wayne Community Schools Corporation (FWCS) established and has maintained a racially dual school system. … ELEVENTH AMENDMENT The history of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence clearly illustrates that a State and its agencies are treated differently, for the purposes of immunity, than state officials sued in their official capacity

Charles v. Holcomb

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2022

Warden Neal alternatively argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established case law holding an inmate has a constitutional right to the use of their preferred pronouns. … 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.

Hunter, Jr. v. Long

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2019

“To overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time of the events underlying this case that (1) a police officer cannot continue to use force once a suspect is subdued, (2) a police officer cannot

Bottos v. Beamer

399 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 16, 1973

Armed with this material, Plaintiff seeks to conclusively establish that Northeast Indiana is the national headquarters of the “crime syndicate.” … Investigation conclusively established that that officer had never been in the possession of such an automobile. 4.

England v. City of Plymouth

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 23, 2022

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 person … clearly established at the time of injury.

RD v. Concord Community Schools

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2021

“A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” … Howard would not be entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law shows that such an invasive search requires more investigation and/or corroboration.

Falls v. Town of Dyer

756 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 10, 1990

This court is well aware of the Seventh Circuit’s en banc determination in Rakovich that qualified immunity can be determined by the district court as a matter of law. … However, this court is constrained by the previous decision of the Court of Appeals and the mandate thereof and is therefore reluctant to bottom its decision on qualified immunity.

Brooks

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 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 … 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.

Billingsley v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2022

or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Distinguishing between the two is not critical for the qualified immunity decision.

Hines v. Elkhart General Hospital

465 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 1979

When presented with a claim in diversity jurisdiction based upon substantive rights created by State law, a Federal District Court clearly qualifies as “any court of this State” (I.C. 16-9.5-9-2). … The Act does establish a separate classification for health care providers who qualify for protection under its provisions.

Hunt v. Elkhart County Sheriff

95 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2000

The only remaining rights, privileges, or immunities that Rev. … The court found that the sheriffs conduct violated substantive due process, but held that the sheriff was protected by qualified immunity. The Coleman court extensively examined the Supreme Court’s analysis in Baker v.