Case law

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.

King v. City of Ft. Wayne, Ind.

590 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 1984

The burden of pleading a qualified good faith immunity was on defendants. The defendants did not plead the affirmative defense of qualified good faith immunity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). … Further, while the individual police officers may be entitled to a qualified immunity based on good faith, the City of Fort Wayne does not possess and is not entitled to any qualified immunity based on good faith.

Bray Ex Rel. Bray v. Hobart City School Corp.

818 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 1993

Qualified immunity may be granted to a governmental official who was performing a discretionary function and whose conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Therefore, since the state administrative scheme did not clearly violate an established federal right, Owens is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gonsalves v. Cleveland

980 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

But unless police officers have violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,’ ” they enjoy qualified immunity from any suit for civil damages for their official conduct. Pearson v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, courts may assess first the occurrence of a statutory or constitutional violation, and then whether the right involved was clearly established, as was mandated by Saucier v.

Marshall v. Town of Merrillville

228 F. Supp. 3d 853 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2017

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

DeLaCruz v. Pruitt

590 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1984

Pruitt’s entitlement to a qualified immunity based on good faith. Harlow v. … result here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

Hogue v. City of Fort Wayne

599 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2009

to qualified immunity. … right; (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Brettler v. Purdue University

408 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2006

State Immunity from Suit Under Title I of the ADA Title I of the ADA prohibits certain employers, including the States, from “discriminating] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such … To establish a claim under Title II, Brettler must prove: (1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; and (3) that he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs,

Evanouski v. Cantrell

58 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 1999

Judge Cantrell also raises the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Under that doctrine, once Evanouski establishes that his allegations make out a violation of a constitutional right, the inquiry becomes whether the that right was clearly established.

Arnold v. City of Fort Wayne

210 F. Supp. 3d 1055 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. … As such, qualified immunity applies if a reasonable officer could have believed the stop of Arnold’s vehicle to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information that the officers possessed. Id.

Tun Ex Rel. Tun v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

326 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 2004

they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established.”

Cowgill v. City of Marion

127 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Sledd v. … and (2) Were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?” Kernats v. O’Sullivan, 35 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir.1994).

Lock v. Jenkins

464 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 1978

While the Federal courts will intervene to protect clearly established constitutional rights, Little v. … The qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be availing to all of the named defendants because the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were not clearly established at the

Shroyer v. United States

904 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2012

immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Kissinger v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch.

293 F. Supp. 3d 796 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2018

Qualified Immunity for the Individual Defendants Whether government officials enjoy qualified immunity involves a two-part inquiry. … Bryan , 523 F.3d 789 , 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (a plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish "that the law concerning the plaintiff's asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged

Blair v. U.S. Treasury Department

596 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 19, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoys only a qualified immunity, so that he could be liable individually if he knows or should have known that he is acting outside the law. Id. at 506-07 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v.

Tucker v. Firks

731 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 1989

As the defendants have noted, 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 … This *1356 court, however, finds that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak

591 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 1984

The foregoing decision with respect to immunity was written at a time when the state of the law with respect to qualified immunity permitted the court to consider both an objective and subjective aspect with respect to the … The change that Harlow brought to the law does not convince this court that Judge McNagny’s decision with respect to qualified immunity in this case was incorrect.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. County of Lake

399 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 20, 1975

Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), clearly dispelled any doubts that the principle of judicial immunity extended to actions brought under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. Citing Bradley v. … from having his conduct challenged — in the form of a preventive action — is well established. . . .

Snyder v. Internal Revenue Service

596 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 1984

The Court found that a federal official enjoyed only a qualified immunity, so that he could be liable individually if he knows or should have known that he is acting outside the law. Id. at 506-07 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … If the officials are alleged to have exceeded their authority and to have operated outside the scope of their official duties, then only the qualified immunity applies. Hutchinson, 677 F.2d at 1328 ; Nelson v.