Case law

Gingerich v. City of Elkhart Probation Department

273 F.R.D. 532 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 8, 2011

To meet the qualified immunity from discovery based on Rule 26(b)(3), the materials sought must be: “(1) documents and tangible things; (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; and (3) by or for a party or … Materials or investigative reports developed in the ordinary course of business do not qualify as work product.

Komoscar v. Pence

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

In the context of this case, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that it was clearly established that the interference with their familial integrity rights was unconstitutional (that … Loomis is entitled to qualified immunity on this argument.

Jackson v. LaPorte County Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … He says Officer Hynek isn’t entitled to qualified immunity because it “has been clear since at least Franks v.

Gibson v. Family Service Division

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 2024

There is an exception to this requirement if the medical provider in question is not “qualified” under the MMA. Id. … Gibson doesn’t dispute counsel’s assertion that Franciscan is a qualified provider.

Z.H. v. Garcia

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

“It is at this point the Rule 12(b)(6) defense and the qualified immunity defense become intertwined. … immunity defense, that is, whether the rights were clearly established at the time of the ride-along.

Fields v. Rozzi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2023

The defense also asserts qualified immunity. … “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

Back v. Heckler

561 F. Supp. 1223 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 1983

Establishment of a disability which would entitle plaintiff to benefits under the Social Security Act is a two-step process. … The plaintiff, in this case must meet the requirements of category 3.02 of the “Listings” in order to qualify for benefits.

Franklin

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2026

Lisa Brown argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Franklin hasn’t demonstrated that Lisa Brown’s actions violated a clearly established right. Ms. … clearly established right.

Martin v. Wentz

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Second, Defendants argue, “Summary judgment should have been granted as the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” (ECF 200 at 7). … Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is not based on those allegations. Defendants do not argue that they would be entitled to qualified immunity based on those allegations.

Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.

458 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 31, 1977

If not qualified by previous experience or cannot qualify within a reasonably short training period, they shall replace the least senior employee in the division. … Seltzer, a female worker, must fail, Kavanaugh’s conclusory statement that the “A-B” system was nondiscriminatory is clearly insufficient when evidence establishing a prima face case is presented before the court.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. v. Orthopaedics Northeast, P.C.

458 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 17, 2006

Alternatively, they argue that the letter is protected by the qualified privilege of common interest. … That Trail's holding is limited to claims of tortuous interference is revealed in the Court's explanation for providing immunity to a corporate officer: That an officer or director of a corporation possesses limited immunity

Mazzacone v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

195 F. Supp. 3d 1022 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2016

Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.1995) (“[A] Rule 59(e) motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.”) … Jul. 10, 2008) (finding that the plaintiff is not qualified under the ADA, in part, because “[n]either [the plaintiff] herself [n]or any other witness establish that there was a particular job at the facility that did not

Caldwell v. Malave

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 21, 2020

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. … Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity will be denied.

Pittman v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF SOUTH BEND

695 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2010

(under the indirect method, plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position sought … Pittman has not shown that he did anything to become a qualified Tech III during the month following his performance review, nor has he established that the SBHA’s explanation for promoting Boone was a ruse.

Merritt v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 11, 2023

Third, Officer McClafferty argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Merritt does not have a clearly established right to have a clean cell without delay during a prison emergency. ECF 43 at 12-14. … On these facts, Officer McClafferty is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Hope v.

City of Mishawaka, Ind. v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc.

465 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 30, 1979

The facts established at trial clearly indicate that it should. … While a subordinate governmental unit’s claim to Parker immunity is not as readily established as the same claim by a state government sued as such, we agree with the Court of Appeals that an adequate state mandate for anticompetitive

Lattimore v. Kosciusko County Sheriff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants Jones, Schopf, and Nash argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas- Villegas v.

Strack v. Holcomb

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2020

was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation, such that a reasonable public official would have known his conduct was unlawful.” … Strack alleges no facts that show any of his constitutional rights, clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, were violated by the defendants.

Drogosz v. Newkirk

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

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Appx. 353, 355 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Bridges and finding qualified immunity applied to shield the defendant because it had not been clearly established “that a threat to file a grievance was protected”); Cobian v.

Zuranski v. Anderson

582 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 1984

Plaintiff at the critical time in question, December 20, 1983, had little money of his own and qualified for indigent status. The defendant, Orval W. … Based on the immunity afforded judges acting in their judicial capacity, the derivative immunities accruing to the sheriff and warden and the lack of any culpable conduct by the remaining defendants, there remains no genuine