Case law

Nyblom v. Dyer Police Department Town of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Defendants 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. Cortesluna, 142 S.

Abe's Free Flow, Inc. v. City of Mishawaka, Ind.

55 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 1999

The City maintains that enactment of the Ordinance was clearly within reason and was not arbitrary. … “Liberty [of contract] implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.” West Coast Hotel Co. v.

Carter v. Lake County Board of Election and Registration

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 8, 2022

to establish either a violation of a statutory or constitutional right or that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … only if they can show entitlement to qualified immunity (citing Scheuer v.

Coleman v. Keebler Co.

997 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 1998

On this record, the answer clearly is “Yes.” … Qualified Individual The “otherwise qualified individual” inquiry is a two part test.

Pieters v. B-Right Trucking, Inc.

669 F. Supp. 1463 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 1987

While the Rule requires that a custodian or qualified witness testify that the requirements of the business records exception have been met, there is no requirement that the “qualified witness” must have personally participated … It is clearly only intended to establish the parameters of emotional distress damages.

Lembach v. State of Indiana

987 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 14, 1997

In addition to 11th Amendment immunity, the court noted that a state and state agencies (the IDOC is an arm of the State of Indiana, since it is established as part of the executive branch of state government) are not “persons … While states can waive that immunity, Indiana has expressly not waived its 11th Amendment immunity. I.C. § 34-4-16.7-3.

Rayl v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

87 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2000

Rayl also attempts to show pretext by alleging that FWCS has failed to establish that he was not qualified for the Aide positions. However, Rayl misplaces the burden on this issue. … FWCS argues that Rayl's own subjective belief that he is qualified is insufficient to establish a prima facie case under Fortier v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 161 F.3d 1106, 1114 (7th Cir.1998).

McFerson v. Gilden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 2020

Defendants argue that even if the force used was unreasonable, Gildon is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a valid defense if a reasonable officer “could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law.” Abbott v.

Clem v. United States

601 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 1985

. § 1346 (b), 2671 et seq., constitutes a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. … In the case presently before the court, the evidence clearly establishes that the Clems were swimming in Lake Michigan in an area adjacent to Mt. Baldy beach at the time of the incident.

Nichols v. Wallace

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendant also contends that summary judgment is warranted because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right. McAllister v.

Pierson v. Nat'l Inst. for Labor Relations Research

319 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2018

Such a statement could be proven false by establishing either (i) that the speaker did not believe that the person lied, and said it anyway; or (ii) by establishing that the person did not lie. Id. at n. 7. … Defendants broadly assert that because "[t]he posting at issue clearly speaks to a matter of public issue, in which author Greer and his organization had an invested interest.... The qualified privilege is applicable."

Cobbs v. Freeman-Wilson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that Defendants Freeman-Wilson, Allen, and Hedrick 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. Cortesluna, 142 S.

L.O. ex rel. D.O. v. East Allen County School Corp.

58 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2014

L.O. did not meet her burden or persuasion to establish that the School has not provided “highly qualified teachers” as required by provisions of Indiana law to implement her IEP. (658; 14.) Issue 13. … L.O. asserts the order is supportable solely by the uncontradicted testimony of her parents that because of her compromised immune system, she needs access to hand sanitizers at frequent times.

Stewardson v. Cass County

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

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and, second, that the right was clearly established at the time of the … Clearly established law must be “particularized” to the facts of a case, Anderson v.

Estate of Conner ex rel. Conner v. Ambrose

990 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 1997

Furthermore, based on the record, this court is not convinced that defendants are protected by “qualified immunity.” The alleged conduct in the present case does not meet the test of “objective, legal reasonableness.” … The entity, here the City, is not entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from liability under § 1983. Id., see also, Carey-Jones v. Duffin, No. 82 C 6285, 1985 WL 826 (N.D.Ill. April 16, 1985).

Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 1168 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2014

To the contrary, the analysis pertaining to § 702 states clearly that “[s]uch organizations remain subject to the provisions of Title VII with regard to race, color, sex or national origin.” Rayburn v. … 676 F.2d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir.1982) (“The legislative history of this exemption shows that although Congress permitted religious organizations to discriminate in favor of members of their faith, religious employers are not immune

Klein v. Mele

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

“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.” … In certain instances where the law is clearly established, an officer’s reliance on the advice of counsel may entitle the officer to qualified immunity as an exception to the lack of immunity based on “extraordinary circumstances

Wilson v. Hutter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 2024

Typically, if the function was “quasi-judicial, the [official] enjoys absolute immunity. If the function was administrative or investigatory, the [official] enjoys only qualified immunity.” Spiegel v. … motion will be 11 Defendants do not argue in the alternative that Hutter or Breljie are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lutheran Hospital of Indiana Inc. v. Business Men's Assurance Co. of America

845 F. Supp. 1275 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 1994

However, they are clearly in disagreement over their legal ramifications. … This clearly includes employees covered under their spouses’ preexisting group health plans.

Economan

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

While this Court has determined that Defendant Garrison Law Firm is a state actor, the question of qualified immunity remains. … Garrison contends that preparing an affidavit for a civil forfeiture without knowing it contained false information does not violate a clearly established right.