Case law

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. . . .

T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corp.

807 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2011

were not clearly established. … I conclude that Principal Couch is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because, though mistaken, his judgment could reasonably have been thought to be consistent with the students’ rights, which were not clearly established

Young v. Internal Revenue Service

596 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 1984

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. … Kerner, this complaint simply does not state a claim of exceeding official authority sufficient to call the qualified immunity into question.

Paige v. Hudson

234 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 2002

“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. … In light of the qualified immunity analysis, this court need not make address this issue. 14 .

Willson v. Buss

370 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2005

Qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if the rule in this case were unconstitutional, Buss would be protected by qualified immunity because the right at issue here is not clearly established. IV.

Mitchell v. Randolph

155 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2001

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The protection afforded through qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, Harlow, 457 U.S., at 819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established

Boyce v. Woodruff

979 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1997

“Qualified immunity shields [officers] from suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the offi *828 cers possessed.’” … Qualified Immunity Even assuming arguendo that M. Adam did not have probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, Woodruff is surely protected by qualified immunity. M.

Carter v. US (Veterans Administration)

768 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 1991

that the United States is not a “qualified health care provider” under Indiana law. … some protection to health care providers and ensure the availability of health care services within the state, the Indiana legislature created a patient compensation fund, to which health care providers contribute, and established

Conner v. United States

947 F. Supp. 1267 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 1996

Clearly, a church is not a qualifying entity. Thus, the government argues that since Calvary is not a third-party recordkeeper, petitioners were not entitled to notice under the provisions of § 7609(a)(1). … Orme establish each of the four elements of a prima facie case for the validity and enforceability of the summonses at issue.

Burkhart Advertising, Inc. v. City of Auburn, Ind.

786 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 1991

In the alternative, even if the Plan Commission and mayor are not cloaked with absolute immunity, they enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability by virtue of the rationale in Harlow v. … As such, de *737 fendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity under the rationale of Harlow .

McCrum v. Elkhart County Department of Public Welfare

806 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 1992

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … She may, of course, proceed immediately with a summary judgment motion supported by evidentiary material demonstrating the facts on which her qualified immunity claim is based.

Larsen v. Fort Wayne Police Department

825 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2010

The Officers also argue that they are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity on Larsen’s false arrest claim. … rules that were clearly established at the time the actions were taken.”

Fortenberry v. Board of School Trustees

149 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 28, 2000

If she is not qualified for any reason, then she falls short of establishing a prima facie case, and there is no inference of discrimination. Id. … Because the issue of whether the Defendants believed Meyers to be more qualified than the Plaintiff is crucial both to establishing the fourth element of the Plaintiffs prima facie case and to establishing pretext, the Court

Williams v. HISSONG

679 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 22, 2009

Qualified immunity is intended to protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Hunter v. … The rationale behind this is “[i]f the law did not put the [defendant] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Bostic v. Pence

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 23, 2023

claim qualified immunity; so long as they have not violated a ‘clearly established’ right, they are shielded from personal liability.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 705 (2011) (quoting Anderson v. … Step Two: Clearly Established Law The second element of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right at issue be “clearly established.”

Cameron v. Internal Revenue Service

593 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 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.

Rubeck v. Sheriff of Wabash County

824 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 27, 1993

Qualified Immunity The defendants invite this court to bottom a decision here on qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). See also Rakovich v. … and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question?’ ” Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1210 (quoting Wade v. Hegner, 804 F.2d 67 [,] 70 (7th Cir.1986)).

Brook v. Prentice

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2025

A law enforcement officer enjoys qualified immunity. … In addition, qualified immunity would apply because “[m]any decisions hold that there is no clearly established rule forbidding a clean takedown to end mild resistance.” Johnson, 944 F.3d at 969 (citing cases). Ms.

Mayes v. City of Hammond, In

442 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2006

Myszak agrees in his reply brief that he is not entitled to absolute immunity. %. Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold. … Similarly, under the qualified immunity analysis, having found that the first prong was not met, the Court need not proceed to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time. 3.

Braaksma v. Wells Community Hospital

98 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 2000

The ADEA’s purported abrogation of the States’ sovereign immunity is accordingly invalid. Braaksma concedes that the ADEA cannot be held to have abrogated a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Braaksma thus concludes that the Hospital is not akin to an arm of the state and is, at most, an arm of the county, and it is well established that counties do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. Doyle at 280.