Case law

Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. McCarty

30 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 1998

constitutional immunity.” … Despite the fact that its participation clearly was not required and its actions clearly were subject to judicial review in federal district court, Indiana chose to participate under the Act.

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.

Malone v. Indianapolis Housing Agency

102 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2000

time of the events in question for qualified-immunity purposes. … Bergna, 924 F.2d 1449, 1453-54 (9th Cir.1991) (applying doctrine of qualified immunity to firing of county prosecutor because it was not clearly established at the lime of the termination whether he was a "policymaker” but

COY v. YARBER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

Coy's excessive force claim, the Court considers the second qualified immunity element—was the constitutional right clearly established at the time of the violation. Mr. Coy must show that Sgt. … Ivy is therefore entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Sgt. Ivy's use of pepper spray was excessive. As to Sgt.

MULLINS v. MILLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2023

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … That's enough to clearly establish the right at issue. See Taylor v. Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 490 (7th Cir. 2021). Defendants Miller and Nauth therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity. ! SO ORDERED.

PRICE v. TOLBERT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2024

"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 … that Officer Tolbert's actions constituted excessive force under clearly established law.

HOGAN v. TUMEY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2024

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

Andrew Evan Howland v. Jackson County Sheriff's Department, et al.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 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 the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts" make out a violation of the right, and (2) that the right "was 'clearly established' at the time of the

Warner v. City of Terre Haute, Ind.

30 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 1998

Her claim is therefore vulnerable to the defense that no municipal liability may attach, as well as to a qualified immunity defense. … The distinction between dismissing and harassing a policymaking employee “is a subtle one,” the court wrote, and it was not “sufficiently established in June 1992 so as to deprive [Sheriff] Benware of qualified immunity.”

VANIHEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 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' … Johnson has not shown the right to have received more meaningful or frequent periodic reviews to be clearly established, Defendants are protected by qualified immunity, and the Court grants summary judgment

HOBSON v. KONKLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In short, the defendants have raised qualified immunity, and Mr. Hobson has not demonstrated that the right to possess a cloth face mask was clearly established on November 3, 2020.

Bosaw v. National Treasury Employees' Union

887 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 24, 1995

Next, if jurisdiction is established, the Court must determine what relief can be given within the scope of that jurisdiction. … The issue in this case seems to be whether the proceeding qualifies as an action against the United States. It is fundamental that the United States can only act through its agents.

Love v. Pence

47 F. Supp. 3d 805 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2014

Standard A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents newly discovered evidence or if the movant clearly establishes a manifest error of fact or law. … However, the Supreme Court created an important exception to that immunity in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

Kaiser v. Mutual Life Insurance

161 F.R.D. 378 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 1994

Clearly, under the ordinary discovery standards of the federal rules, the plaintiffs are entitled to depose Mr. Weitzman without preapproval of the Court and the burden is on the defendants to establish them objections. … Weitzman’s (or the defendants’) burden to establish the propriety of those objections if presented to the Court.

CURRY v. NORTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2024

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "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

May v. Collins

122 F.R.D. 535 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 1988

Defendants, Collins and Buickel, acting in the scope of their authority and pursuant to law, have qualified immunity from any liability. This matter is set for trial on August 8, 1988. … This Court appreciates Indiana’s interests expressed in their statute which grants absolute immunity.

Bowling v. Pence

39 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2014

The memoranda issued by the Governor clearly contradict his prior representations to the court. … Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that this Section violates their due process rights to marry, access to courts, and right to travel; the Establishment Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

SAPP v. EVANSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2023

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Finally, and critically to this case, "once a defendant claims qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established."

Wabash Valley Power Ass'n v. Rural Electrification Administration

713 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 16, 1989

In addition to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the Tucker Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., broadly waives the government’s sovereign immunity in suits seeking only equitable … Indiana law clearly provides for a similar challenge and appeals procedure.

PASSMORE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION -- PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2023

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … To meet that burden and overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must "show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the time of