Case law

Perry v. Barnard

745 F. Supp. 1394 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 12, 1990

Clearly, Parden was read narrowly, see, e.g., Employees of the Dep’t of Pub. Health and Welfare v. Department of Pub. … Thus, Perry’s allegation that these defendants have a “custom or practice” of disregarding his complaints does not establish an exception to the state’s eleventh amendment immunity. 10 .

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."

Porter v. Bainbridge

405 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 1975

This procedure assures qualified and registered voters that their votes will not be diluted or nullified by votes of unqualified and unregistered persons. 3. … No facts are alleged or established showing any of the essential elements of a conspiracy.

International Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n

149 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 25, 2001

These communications are clearly ancillary to that action. … Clearly the case managers employed by the AAA are not charged with weighing the merits of a given party’s contention that a dispute is not arbitrable.

HAYES v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 5, 2023

The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. … 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

STROTHER v. SCOTT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … clearly established law.

MOORE v. DAVIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 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 … The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084, 1090 (7th Cir. 2013).

TOWNSEND v. MCWILLIAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong because they did not violate Ms. Townsend’s clearly established rights. Dkt. 79 at 13–24. … under clearly established law.

PIERCE v. ALICEA

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

Pierce and that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1. … "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

WILLIAMS v. LAYTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 8, 2022

"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 … Officer Knapp argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law that he "could not open and close cell doors" during the incident. Dkt. 91 at 10.

Chandler Natural Gas Corp. v. Barr

110 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2000

Therefore, all defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity under this claim. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Hargrave and Weis are immune from damage claims, but may be subject to injunc-tive relief under this theory.

FIELDS v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 19, 2022

To make a qualified immunity determination, the Court must "(1) determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) if so, determine whether that right was clearly established … To determine if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, therefore, the Court must determine whether his right to be free of this use of excessive force was clearly established.

GRIFFITH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 30, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "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

SHINNEMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 1, 2022

a clearly established right to a seatbelt during transport under the Eighth Amendment. 771 F. … 2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct."

GIBBS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … "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

Winters v. Mowery

836 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … clearly established constitutional or statutory rights and the information she possessed.

CISLO v. MARTZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2021

"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 … "To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show two elements: first, that the facts show 'a violation of a constitutional right,' and second, that the 'constitutional right was clearly established at

STONE v. COUCH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2021

To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that "(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that [the] right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." … In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v.

ROBINSON v. AYORINDE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 2021

A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity if "every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply." Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … "Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, . . . the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct."

HOLLEMAN v. GILBERT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2022

"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." White v. Pauly. 137 S. … "[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.