Case law

PERDUE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2026

"To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the … The Court therefore addresses the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Bony v. Brandenburg

735 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 4, 1990

Moreover, defendants have also shown that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … To the contrary, the only evidence before the Court establishes that the defendants acted properly and pursuant to governing regulations and standards. Thus, the defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Baker v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

260 F. Supp. 2d 731 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 29, 2003

He also makes a separate claim that, in December 2001, he applied for an “Accountant I” position within FSSA, but that the position was offered to an allegedly less qualified Caucasian applicant. Id. f 20. … In addition, Carl Hoffman made a discriminatory remark which clearly indicated to me that I would not be considered for promotion because of my race. Compl., Ex. A.

Allstate Insurance v. Boles

587 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 30, 1984

In abrogating Indiana’s common law spousal immunity, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the reasoning tendered for retention of the immunity was judicially unsound and that there was no legislation to the contrary. … The holding in Brooks is clearly addressed only to the issue of interspousal immunity.

CORDELLIONE v. GRAY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2025

Qualified Immunity "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … "To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the

EDWARDSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2026

"Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a defendant is entitled to dismissal unless a plaintiff comes forward with facts showing a constitutional violation and law showing his right was 'clearly established … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing "clearly established law . . . particularized to the facts of the case." Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2017).

ESTATE OF CROUCH v. Madison County

682 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 2010

Crisp’s constitutional rights, Officers Purnell, Crisp, and Barnes have asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Because, as detailed above, we have found that Mr. … Crouch's constitutional rights were not violated, we have not included a qualified immunity analysis in this ruling. 10 . There is no dispute that Mr.

LOCKETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2026

Qualified Immunity Standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Bashua argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there are no closely analogous cases clearly establishing that a correctional officer would violate the Eighth Amendment by briefly closing the cuff port on

SAINTIGNON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026

Yarber assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their actions violated the Constitution. … Saintignon does not address qualified immunity at all. See dkt. 52; Villalobos v.

McFeely v. United States

700 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 1988

The JROTC unit to which Cadet Hehman was attached was established and administered by Indianapolis Public Schools (“IPS”). … Such testimony is clearly hearsay under Fed.R. Evid. 801.

CRAIG

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 11, 2026

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that 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 … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Mason v. Hamilton County

13 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 1998

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court therefore has not treated qualified immunity as a basis for denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

HECKE v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2025

Qualified Immunity Standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Hecke, therefore, cannot defeat the second, "clearly established" prong to overcome Sgt. Brice's invocation of qualified immunity. The Court finds that Sgt. Brice is not liable to Mr.

MORRIS v. TALABI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2025

Existing precedent need not be "directly on point" to clearly establish a right. Id. (cleaned up). … Application Officer Talabi argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were reasonable and not clearly unconstitutional. Dkt. 53 at 9–10.

O'BRIEN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity Standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, to overcome qualified immunity, Mr. O'Brien must show that: (1) the Defendants violated his statutory or constitutional rights; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

MARSHALL v. STENNIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 21, 2025

Marshall did not have a clearly established First Amendment Free Exercise right to possess a Qur'an that violated a religiously neutral IDOC rule.5 Dkt. 83 at 16–18. To defeat qualified immunity, Mr. … Moreover, unreported district court decisions cannot clearly establish a constitutional right for qualified immunity purposes in a civil rights action. See Day v. Wooten, 947 F.3d 453, 462 (7th Cir. 2020). Mr.

Hamner v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.

92 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2000

Although this second report clearly contained criticisms of Community and its staff, there is nothing in Mr. … Statutory Immunity An Indiana statute provides: An employer that discloses information about a current or former employee is immune from civil liability for the disclosure and the consequences proximately caused by the disclosure

MORRIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 8, 2026

Standard for Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Zehner v. Trigg

952 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 1997

Apart from the examples of political questions committed to other branches of government, the doctrines of sovereign immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and qualified and absolute immunity for individual government officials … In light of the well-established doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity under § 1983, such a damages remedy cannot be constitutionally required in all eases.

MORRIS v. MYERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2025

Standard for Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts consider (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.