Case law

Caldwell v. Blythe

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2020

Dismissal of Caldwell’s § 1983 claims is also warranted on the basis of qualified immunity. … A finding of qualified immunity is appropriate where: (1) the alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Sherman v.

Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n v. Kovich

865 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 11, 2011

The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. Id. The determination of governmental immunity under the ITCA is a question of law for the courts. Id. … Because Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof at trial, Plaintiff must establish all the elements of the claim.

United States v. Maxey & Co., Pc

956 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 1997

First, the court finds that the Government has sufficiently established that the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. … However, the Eighth Circuit held that, at the grand jury stage, such issues are clearly premature. Id.

Hammond

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2026

Qualified Immunity Here again, the Court largely agrees with the standard cited by Defendant, that to ascertain whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified … immunity from civil liability in a § 1983 excessive force claim, the Court must evaluate: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Stewart v. Gallagher

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2023

Qualified immunity, which protects government officials from damages liability, “attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Turning to the second element of qualified immunity, a constitutional right is “clearly established” when “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Kudla v. Hammond City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 16, 2022

“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.” … “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 right

Manuel v. City of Elkhart

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 2019

of qualified immunity if those rights were not “clearly established.” … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).

Rumler v. Hyatte

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2024

Next, the court considers the defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, government officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Roe v. International Harvester Co.

604 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 1984

By plaintiff’s own testimony, he was aware that managers were not immune to the possibility of layoff or discharge. 12. Employees in Inspection, Department 52 performed many functions. … Generally speaking, in order to establish a prima facie case it is incumbent upon plaintiff to show: 1. That plaintiff was a member of the protected class (age 40-70); 2. That he was qualified for the position; 3.

Culp v. Reed

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

“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 7 … 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. Corp., 678 F.3d 513, 529-30 (7th Cir. 2012).

C.S. v. Couch

843 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2011

Even if Miranda did apply to C.S.’s situation, and to the extent that they were acting as "government officials” (and not as private citizens), the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity as C.S.’s right to Miranda … As such, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to give such a warning (if it was required). . Defendants also argue that they are entitled to immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.

Clark v. United States

206 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2002

Congress has established a clear plan of recovery for those individuals whose United States Treasury check has been either stolen or lost without any fault by the claimant. See 31 U.S.C. § 3343 . … Under section 7433, the statutory language clearly provides that this court does have jurisdiction over such a claim. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (a).

Brown v. Krueger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2023

The district court’s decision was also affirmed on alternate grounds—that the AUSA was entitled to absolute immunity and the FBI Agent was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 565–69. … Thus, even if Brown had alleged a viable Bivens claim against Agent Chonowski, based on the facts available in the record, he would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Bates v. City of Ft. Wayne, Ind.

591 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 1983

Qualified good faith immunity is available to police officers acting in their official capacities. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). See also Procunier v. … If the city employees are found not liable on grounds other than their qualified immunities, then the city also cannot be held liable.

Auto Owners (Mutual) Insurance v. Stanley

262 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1967

Clearly Foster failed in his responsibility. … This decision, based as it is upon ordinary legal principles, falls well within the scope of established Indiana policy.

Marvin v. St. Joseph County Sheriff Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 2022

violation, the Defendant officers are still entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established. 1. … Whether the Right was “Clearly Established” The Court now considers the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred

Betts

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity and Monell Liability Defendants also argue that summary judgment is appropriate because the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government employees are not liable “for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

VanDalsen v. Roswarksi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2023

A related principle is the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. . . .

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Renfrow

475 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 1979

Damages It is settled case law that school officials possess a qualified immunity with respect to acts performed within the course of their duties. Wood v. … The record here clearly discloses several fatal failures of the plaintiff to meet the elementary requirements of Rule 23.

Miles v. Anton

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2024

(3) Qualified Immunity Finally, Ms. Anton argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … 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