Case law

Walsh v. City of Michigan City

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2021

Under the circumstances here, Officer Henderson also has qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil damages “unless the plaintiff can show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time

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.

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.

Rankin v. Stigdon

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Gupta v. … “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes where [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Underwood v. Russian Space Agency (In Re Rimsat, Ltd.)

196 B.R. 791 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 1995

This case also presents the potential for a conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in the event that the district court would determine that the defendants do not qualify for any of … the exceptions to immunity.

T.Z., By and Through his Parent and Legal Guardian, P.Z. v. Tippecanoe School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2023

qualified immunity.” … The court later concluded that the plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. at 892–93.

United States v. Handley

407 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 1976

(issuance of Special Grand Jury Report); In re Reno, 331 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Mich. 1971) (rejection of objections to immunity grant for Special Grand Jury). … Both the order empaneling the Special Grand Jury and the statute upon which it was based establish a broad and general mandate to the Grand Jury for criminal investigation.

Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co.

132 F.R.D. 204 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1990

Baxter Travenol Lab., Inc., 676 F.Supp. 831 (N.D.Ill.1987) to establish waiver of the attorney-client privilege. … More to the point, the documents could establish the level of skill established by Hunt-Wesson at the time the purported invention was made.

Fields v. Roswarski

469 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2007

A plaintiff may not recover on a Fourth Amendment claim where “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officer … The factual allegations of the complaint also establish that officers Carpenter and Clyde had probable cause to arrest Mr.

Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc.

737 F. Supp. 2d 976 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2010

To establish a failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff must show the employer was aware of his disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, in addition to the initial showing that he is a qualified individual … Clearly, a question of fact remains whether Hoffman’s requested accommodation was reasonable.

Morris Gydesen v. Brian Miller, Officer, et al.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2026

to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. … A plaintiff may defeat a qualified immunity defense by “pointing to a clearly analogous case establishing a right to be free from the specific conduct at issue” or by showing that “the conduct at issue is so egregious that

Kittle v. Duneland School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 13, 2023

For the purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if “the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Third, even if a court finds that a right is clearly established, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the official made a reasonable mistake at to what the law required. Id. at 205.

Caldwell v. Wright

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 26, 2022

of qualified immunity. … Particularly in light of my previous determinations about the merits of Caldwell’s constitutional claims, Wright is entitled to qualified immunity given Caldwell’s failure to demonstrate that Wright violated clearly established

Fifth Third Bank Ex Rel. Bozik v. CSX Corp.

306 F. Supp. 2d 841 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2004

Furthermore, it has been held that the decision of the placement of stop signs is a matter of discretion, since the signing of streets and highways clearly requires judgment and discretion. … making authority by establishing a federal law requirement. ...”

Doe v. Barber

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2025

The court explained that public officials could still be sued for discretionary decisions if those decisions violated clearly established constitutional or statutory law (akin to federal qualified immunity analysis … That said, Cantrell folds Kellogg into the immunity analysis of discretionary acts when the municipality’s actions (or the conduct of government officials when the focus is that) violate clearly established constitutional

Shank v. Martinez

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

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

Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.

614 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1985

In any event the defendant Moore is clearly entitled to the immunity defense under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). See also Davis v. … Brelje, 701 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir.1983) granted immunity to state officials for supervising and establishing policies for a state mental institution. In Silverman v.

Beamon v. Hamed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 22, 2021

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 … However, “because a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

Miller v. LaPorte County of The

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2019

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 … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Jones-Bey v. Wright

944 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 1996

McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2625 , 132 L.Ed.2d 866 (1995), but the defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, which applies to RFRA claims arising prior to the statute … The qualified immunity doctrine provides that officials performing discretionary functions are immune from damage claims if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable