Case law

McAllister v. TOWN OF BURNS HARBOR

693 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2010

Qualified immunity is a defense to a claim under § 1983, shielding police officers from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In the instant case, a reasonable jury could find that Defendant Price took Plaintiff to the ground so forcefully that he broke his hip. (2) Qualified Immunity Neither does the doctrine of qualified immunity support summary

Oliver Ex Rel. Hines v. McClung

919 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 1995

The qualified immunity doctrine states that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … “A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context

Williams v. Hall

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2021

Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706, 727 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Courts generally hold that the use of a taser against an actively resisting suspect either does not violate clearly established law or is constitutionally reasonable. … Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2018) (granting officer qualified immunity for administering four Taser shots in less than a minute during arrest of actively resisting subject). Mr.

Feagin v. Broglin

693 F. Supp. 736 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 1988

A plaintiff cannot plead around the qualified immunity defense by a broad statement of the right: ... our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more … Stoner, he should have known that his conduct, too, might violate that clearly established right. Supt. Broglin is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. Personal Involvement Supt.

Larson v. Cantrell

974 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 1997

Judge Cantrell’s second major argument is that she is entitled to qualified immunity, Under that doctrine, government officials enjoy immunity from damages liability unless their conduct “violate [s] clearly established statutory … Next, Judge Cantrell argues for qualified immunity position-by-position.

Graham v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2021

The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional under clearly established law. ECF 61 at 19-21. However, this argument fails as to Sgt. … Zimmerman cannot avoid trial on qualified immunity grounds.

Howard v. Ealing

876 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 2012

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Id.

Crawford v. Indiana Department of Correction

937 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 1996

The defendant state officials were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1346, 1352 ; see also Gorman v. … Nov. 22, 1995) (holding it was not “clearly established” that the ADA applied to state prisons in July, 1994). There is a lack of authority directly contradicting Torcasio .

Moore v. Calumet Township of Lake County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Martin, 614 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a government employee in the plaintiff’s position could not be fired

Kelley v. City of Michigan City

300 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2004

Warsanen Defendant Warsanen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 . … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for government officials in Section 1983 suits which allege constitutional violations.

Williams v. HAINJE

583 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2008

Defense of Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity requires courts to enter judgment in *970 favor of a government employee unless the employee’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Judging the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, using the force of a police dog on a person offering little or no resistance would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment such that a “clearly established right

Gray v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA

693 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of their employment unless their conduct violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … of the actions was clearly established at the time of their occurrence.

Wolf v. Napier

742 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 8, 1990

It is a closer question, but it *1020 is this court’s conclusion that those facts fit under the absolute immunity of Imbler v. Pachtman, rather than the qualified immunity of Malley v. Briggs. … Officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Piggie v. Riggle

548 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2008

Qualified immunity protects only the person who committed a Constitutional violation, but who could not have known that it was a Constitutional violation because no court in a controlling jurisdiction had clearly established … Under the circumstances, however, qualified immunity is not applicable here because Ms. Riggle has not made the requisite admissions to support a qualified • immunity defense. See Jones v.

Kirkwood v. DeLONG

683 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on a theory of qualified immunity. … Government officials, including police officers, are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for actions that could have been reasonably believed to be lawful in light of clearly established law. Anderson v.

Tilson v. City of Elkhart, Ind.

317 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity Even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the Defendants argue that DeJong’s conduct did not violate clearly established standards under existing case law and therefore he would be entitled to qualified … to qualified immunity.

Sivard v. Pulaski County

809 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 1992

Under qualified immunity, however, government officials 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 … The Coleman court held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the sheriff’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Coleman v. Frantz, 754 F.2d at 730-31 .

Hartbarger v. Blackford County Department of Public Welfare

733 F. Supp. 300 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 1990

Officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants have now raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Woods v. City of Michigan City, Ind.

685 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 1988

Still, qualified immunity protects the officers from individual liability unless the detention violated clearly established rights — in other words, Mr. … Woods violated a right clearly protected by an Indiana statute. 9 Accordingly, as a matter of law, the officers are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Mowery

743 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1990

The Supreme Court has recognized that state officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v.