Case law

Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak

502 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 1980

of are outside their authority, those charged with unconstitutional acts are entitled only to a qualified immunity. … Although it is now clear that absolute immunity is no longer a bar to suit when a constitutional violation has occurred, a qualified immunity for officials remains.

Maravilla v. United States

867 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 17, 1994

The agents have also argued for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Indeed, even if the foregoing did not support summary judgment for the agents, qualified immunity certainly would. … Put another way, qualified immunity exists where “at the time of the alleged seizure, a reasonable officer could have believed that [the defendant officer’s] conduct was constitutional ‘in light of the clearly established

Dobbie v. Bremen Police Dep't

341 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2018

As such, they qualify as actions taken during judicial proceedings which are shielded by absolute immunity. See id. … Further, in objecting to the report and recommendation, the plaintiffs contend that the prosecutors are only entitled to qualified immunity based on Daniels v. Kieser , 586 F.2d 64 (7th Cir. 1978) and Auriemma v.

Mott v. Indiana

793 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 8, 1991

Certainly, these defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity, since none of the constitutional rights that this plaintiff is arguing for are clearly established under Harlow v. … This qualified immunity decision is also specifically supported by McKinney, 924 F.2d at 1509 .

Biddle v. City of Fort Wayne

591 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1984

Qualified Good Faith Immunity of Individual Defendants. … The individual defendants complied with all the clearly established rights of which they would have known. The individual defendants are entitled to assert a qualified good faith immunity in this matter. E.

America's Best Cinema Corp. v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc.

347 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 1972

Those purposes are clearly not anticompetitive. … The NPA provides for specific exemptions from the antitrust laws for qualifying joint newspaper operating arrangements. The court has found that the defendant newspapers here qualify under that Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1802 .

Higdon v. Wells County Sheriff's Office

426 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 5, 2006

The Defendants have filed their motions for summary judgment arguing that Higdon cannot establish a constitutional violation and, even if he did, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would

Berman v. American National Red Cross

834 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 6, 1993

Clearly however, Hanna shows that it takes more than a congressional designation as a federally chartered instrumentality to become protected by sovereign immunity. … Although it is clear Congress waived portions of the immunity when it required the Red Cross “to sue and be sued”, the Act which established the American National Red Cross is silent as to the availability of jury trials.

Bovey v. City of Lafayette, Ind.

586 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 1984

It was certainly not clearly established under the facts of this case. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Weller v. Grant County Sheriff

75 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 1999

“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).

Fields v. Town of Merrillville

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2022

claims, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate “clearly established constitutional rights.” … However, “because a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.” Reed v.

J.H. v. School Town of Munster

160 F. Supp. 3d 1079 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2016

In evaluating whether the officials could be protected by qualified immunity, the court focused on two primary questions: (1) whether the law clearly established that the Equal Protection Clause required school officials … A failure to comply with that law negates qualified immunity.

Roberson v. Nathanael

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

Government officials are protected from civil liability when performing discretionary functions under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”

Pinkney v. Thomas

583 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2008

What constitutes a civil battery is well established. … Accordingly, the Court will not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Royer

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2026

Thus, under a qualified immunity analysis, the main question is whether or not Ms. Becker violated a right that was clearly established at the time of Mr. Royer’s interrogation. … But this distinction further suggests that this case’s facts are outside the realm of clearly established law, and thus inside the scope of qualified immunity’s protection.

Marozsan v. United States

849 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 22, 1994

The Supreme Court established the doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457.U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law

Chivers v. Central Noble Community Schools

423 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2006

Chivers’s § 1983 claim is not foreclosed for failure to establish that Gillespie was acting under color of state law. 3. Qualified Immunity Gillespie contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (describing “clearly established” requirement of qualified immunity).

Kadambi v. Express Scripts, Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 900 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2015

The Indiana legislature states quite clearly when it intends to create an explicit right of action. See Ind. … The plaintiffs first argue that section 25-26-13-16 provides civil immunity to a pharmacist if the refusal to honor a prescription is made in good faith and that this immunity “would be unnecessary if the statute did not

Bowlds

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2026

Qualified Immunity A qualified immunity defense involves two related questions. The court may first examine whether the official violated a federal right. … Lieutenant Persinger and Sergeant Meeks are protected by qualified immunity because Plaintiff fails to establish the unlawfulness of their use of force.5 Even 5 Defendants’ argument as to Lieutenant Persinger and Sergeant

M.O. Ex Rel. C.O. v. Indiana Department of Education

635 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2009

immunity. … the heartland of what these cases have established as quasi-judicial adjudicatory functions.”