Case law

Millspaugh v. Wabash County Department of Public Welfare

746 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Chambers v. Puff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

Lemmon, 911 F.3d 412, 419 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding waiver where plaintiff did not address the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity in the district court). … What this argument ignores is the fact that qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court to decide; the existence of a clearly established right is not an issue for a jury. Brown v. Knapp, 156 F.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

Wilderness v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity Lastly, Sgt. … Haskell and Officer Sanders argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established law. ECF 103 at 7-9.

Burns v. Rekeweg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 2020

Defendants further contend that Deputy Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Burn’s clearly-established rights. … Therefore, Mendoza is entitled to summary judgment based upon the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. Indiana Department of Child Services

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

The Seventh Circuit has found social workers are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity in various situations. Brokaw v. … clearly established”); Millspaugh v.

Sharp v. Liebel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021

He previously only raised a qualified immunity argument on that issue. … 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

Strickland v. Shotts

408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004

Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.

Bell v. Fort Wayne Police Department

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

“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 … The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard in qualified immunity cases: Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“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.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

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. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Rivas v. Martin

781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2011

Second, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of Rivas’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.) … Thus, because the allegations state that defendants violated Rivas’ clearly established constitutional rights, defendants cannot be granted qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Reiner v. Dandurand

33 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2014

“[G]overnmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … James did not do so; thus, the Officers’ decision to pull James over for a traffic violation is also not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 3 Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity

Snider v. Pekny

899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012

Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Weeks v. Hodges

871 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2012

Qualified Immunity Summary judgment may still be appropriate for the individual defendants if they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis cannot be disentangled from those disputed facts, and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. 8 IV.

Brown v. City of Fort Wayne

752 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2010

Nevertheless, Brown can overcome the qualified immunity defense concerning the seizure of the video games and fur coat by showing that the constitutional right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … of qualified immunity.