Case law

GRIFFIN v. KNIGHT

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

"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."

RIDENER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2023

The Rideners respond that qualified immunity does not apply here because Defendants' conduct violated clearly established rights. [Dkt. 89 at 11.] … "To counter the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." Greene v.

GRIFFITH v. HENDRIX

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2025

The "difficult part" of this prong of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. … Holcomb is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See id. (affirming the denial of qualified immunity).

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."

MEDRANO v. WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2024

In conclusion, Crew is entitled to qualified immunity from Medrano's excessive force claim because it was not clearly established that his conduct was unlawful. B. … Because it was not clearly established that Crew's actions constituted 7 "Qualified immunity is an individual defense available to each individual defendant in his individual capacity." Est. of Williams v.

MAY v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 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. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009), the Supreme Court "held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more

Velasquez v. Frapwell

994 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 6, 1998

Finally, even if the statute reflected an inconsistency in State policy, it does not even begin to approach the unmistakable clarity required to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Conclusion Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suits brought by individuals in federal court in enacting USERRA.

WILFORD v. VIGO COUNTY JAIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2023

"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 … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Witco Corp. v. City of Indianapolis

762 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 1991

Immunity The City claims that it is entitled to governmental tort immunity under three subsections of Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3. … Moreover, the day-to-day maintenance decisions of DPW’s real estate manager are even more clearly operational activities rather than planning.

Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Indiana

123 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 1954

Fair Board, against all actions at law, including the one here involved, unless the State through its legislature has clearly waived such immunity. … Here then, the state has clearly waived immunity and subjected itself to suit, at least to the extent as authorized in the Toll Road Commission Act.

BROWN v. VIGO COUNTY JAIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified Immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court evaluates Officer Knopp's claim to qualified immunity with this in mind and exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test.

BALL v. PLASSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2023

"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 … Dec. 15, 2020), in which the court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because "the law is clearly established that individuals in government custody have a constitutional right to be protected

Shannon v. Bepko

684 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 1988

The ultimate determination, however, clearly raises a question of federal law. See Miller-Davis Co. v. … As this court has only recently observed, it is well established that [t]he threshold question under any Fourteenth Amendment due process claim ... is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a cognizable life, liberty,

SWEAT v. NORTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Officer Norton asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity for her 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

CHEN v. LOVINS

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

Qualified immunity standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … While there may be plenty to criticize about how DCS handled this situation, there's no clearly established constitutional violation so Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Ms.

POINDEXTER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 2024

Legal Standards Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

COLEMAN v. KELLAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2023

Legal Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The principle of fair notice pervades the qualified immunity doctrine. Campbell, 936 F.3d at 545.

BOYKINS v. WARDEN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2025

"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 … Boykins has not carried his burden to show that Ombudsman Burkett violated a "clearly established" right of Mr. Boykins. She is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because of qualified immunity. 2.

Doe v. Eagle-Union Community School Corp.

101 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2000

Id. at 1050 (concluding that IHO was entitled to absolute immunity as an adjudicator). … The IHO’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ Section 504 claims and his findings in relation to those claims were clearly correct on the administrative record.

UNDERWOOD v. CONYERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2023

"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. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009), the Supreme Court "held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more