Case law

Swimming Turtle v. Board of County Commissioners

441 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1977

In re-enacting Article III of the Northwest Ordinance the First Congress clearly exercised its power under Article I, Section 8(3) of the Constitution of the United States. … The immunity conferred by Article III is not limited to Indian Tribes but may, in appropriate cases, apply to individual Indians as well. There is no strict need to show tribal relations.

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.

Zimmer, Inc. v. Nu Tech Medical, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 1999

Zimmer notes that the advisory opinion process may only be used to immunize an agreement from prosecution. 42 C.F.R. § 1008.5 (a). The OIG did not immunize the parties’ Agreement. … Nu Tech apparently possessed a Medicare billing number, which qualified it as a “supplier” under 42 C.F.R. § 424.57 (a).

Huff v. Tabler

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2019

Finally, the defendants argue that, even if they committed a constitutional violation, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. … “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

Minority Police Officers Ass'n v. City of South Bend

617 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 5, 1985

and definitely not qualified.” … Continental Illinois National Bank, 704 F.2d at 367 , so they are clearly not enough to prove the ultimate question of discrimination. 52 .

Stone - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO DOCUMENTS v. Whitt

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 2019

The Seventh Circuit has stated that “[b]ecause a qualified immunity defense so closely depends ‘on the facts of the case,’ a ‘complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’” … It was clearly established at the time of the stop that a traffic stop is unlawful if not supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause that a traffic violation occurred.

Bailor v. Salvation Army

854 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 1994

To the contrary, the alleged acts or omissions of Jackson were clearly work related and arose out of his employment as a matter of law. 11 Accordingly, Jackson is immune from common-law liability by virtue of Indiana’s Worker … Thus, the Salvation Army was clearly an independent contractor, and therefore under 28 U.S.C. § 2671 the United States is immune from liability for any negligent acts allegedly committed by them. 24 Accordingly, Count V of

Grooms v. Caldwell

806 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 1991

established constitutional rights of this plaintiff. … Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 , 109 S.Ct. 497 , 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988), the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See also Mitchell v.

Catalano v. Starke County of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 2025

“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing [his] conduct comes within the Act.” King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 480 (Ind. 2003). … So the court must walk through the operative pleading as it exists without this aid really from either side, ever mindful of the party bearing the burden of establishing immunity. Mr.

Zieba v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership

361 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 14, 2005

If Zieba can establish that, he must then show that Harrah’s failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. Id. … Larsen’s report clearly implies that the restrictions were of a permanent nature”); Amadio, 238 F.3d at 928 .

Danaher v. Michaw

435 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 1977

more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified … Pension Board “the right, at any time, to cause such retired member again to be brought before it, and again be examined by competent physicians or surgeons . . . ” The Pension Board’s action in calling plaintiff back was clearly

Zisis v. St. Joseph Tp. of Allen County

979 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1997

This is clearly an insufficient basis for a false arrest claim against Uhrick and the Township. *813 4. … Zisis fails to address this immunity issue in his response.

Cameron v. Metcuz

705 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 1989

Such language is permissive and clearly leaves unfettered discretion with Indiana health officials. … The initial determination is clearly discretionary with health officials. The legislature has merely established procedural guidelines to channel official discretion. See Culbert, 834 F.2d at 629 .

United States v. Hallam

723 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 1989

Hallam (1) was a minor participant in a crime involving six kilograms of cocaine, (2) has clearly accepted personal responsibility for her involvement, and (3) has no prior criminal record, her guideline range is imprisonment … sentence below the statutory minimum should be imposed and concludes pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines that the court should depart downward to a sentencing range seven levels lower than that for which she is qualified

Indiana Waste Systems, Inc. v. County of Porter

787 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 12, 1992

IWS asserts that these three constitutional violations establish that the Defendants, in enacting the Ordinance, denied IWS the privileges and immunities of the Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requests this … The County advances this construction and states that the “landfill owner or operator who meets these requirements qualifies for a local operating permit.”

Alexander v. City of South Bend

256 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 4, 2003

To state a claim for relief in a § 1983 action, Plaintiff must establish that Defendants acted under color of state law and deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law. 42 U.S.C … immunity.

Coleman v. Wexford of Indiana LLC

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

Last, all defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[a]t no time did any of these Defendants render medical care that was so clearly a violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights that any … Thus, the defendants cannot avoid trial on grounds of qualified immunity.

United States v. Church

736 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 17, 1990

The facts clearly establish that the VA was relieved of its obligation as guarantor on Church’s loan by the Wisconsin VA’s failure to proceed against Church for personal liability after the VA notified the Wisconsin VA in … The regulations promulgated by the VA itself establish that they have no right to indemnification in this case.

Sajda v. Brewton

265 F.R.D. 334 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 20, 2009

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.

Hall v. Miami Correctional Facility

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2025

Defendants also contend that they have 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.