Case law

HENDERSON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government 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.” … The Court’s qualified immunity “analysis hinges on whether reasonable officers under the circumstances would know their conduct violated a clearly established right.” Id. at *4; see also Jenkins v.

SMITH v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity 'protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … 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.

JONES v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2021

"[B]ecause a qualified immunity defense so clearly depends on the facts of a case, a complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds." Reed v. … "'In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we look to (1) whether the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established.'" Broadfield v.

TAYLOR v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The district court went on to conclude that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because "an inmate's right to send and receive mail has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Thornburgh

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. v. PSI Resources, Inc.

148 F.R.D. 604 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1993

immunity to discovery similar to the attorney’s work product doctrine____” Grand Metropolitan, 1988 WL 130637 at *1. … "qualified immunity doctrine for strategic business documents.” .

TAYLOR v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2020

Second, that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.”); Abbott v. … And the Court found no Seventh Circuit precedent clearly establishing such a right. Id.

EINES v. MAYNARD

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

Qualified immunity "[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).

ALBRECHTSEN v. PARSONS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2019

Albrechtsen’s sole argument on qualified immunity is that the caselaw conclusively establishes that reasonable suspicion is required before an individual may be detained. … Albrechtsen fails to point to law clearly establishing the alleged constitutional violation and therefore fails to defeat Defendants’ claim to qualified immunity.

SHINNEMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 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. … Courts cannot define "clearly established law at a high level of generality" but rather must assess "whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established." Id. (cleaned up).

Colburn v. Trustees of Indiana University

739 F. Supp. 1268 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 15, 1990

Qualified Immunity: It takes no great discussion to show that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims under Harlow v. … Similarly, because it was not clearly established that professors at Indiana University had a property interest in being reappointed, promoted, or granted tenure, qualified immunity is also applicable to the due process claims

BANKHEAD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 18, 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' … Bankhead alleges were therefore clearly established when they occurred in 2023. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

WHITE v. CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2023

The State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established law. [Filing No. 91 at 7.] … Brenden White responds that the State Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.

Brown v. Pitzer (In Re Brown)

249 B.R. 303 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 2, 2000

Fortunately, the language of the decree clearly provides the answer to that question, a conclusion reinforced by Indiana law. … Congress established ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., to provide a detailed federal framework for the regulation of employee pension and welfare plans.

MANERY v. LEE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2024

Qualified immunity grants "no license to lawless conduct"; rather, it focuses on "the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law." Id. at 818– 19. … Where a factual dispute precludes resolution of the first inquiry, as it does here, an officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established.

DHANI v. HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2025

Dhani's rights, but if they did, those rights were not clearly established, so the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. Mr. … Dhani cites two cases holding that qualified immunity does not protect officials who violate clearly established rights, but he does not provide cases analogous to Defendants' conduct here.

RIGHTSELL v. INDIANA STATE POLICE

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

As this is clearly an unresolved question of law,2 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by the Estate was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional intrusion. … Finally, Defendants maintain that they "are entitled to qualified immunity" because the Estate can neither "say that it was clearly established at the time [Mr.] Rightsell was shot that [Supt.]

ROBERTSON v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2021

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue alternatively that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because it is not clearly established that periodic reviews … 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.

Moss v. Putnam County Hospital

860 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2011

“The immunity provided in Ind.Code § 22-4-17-9 becomes available after an individual is ‘compelled after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination to testify or produce evidence....’” Penny v. … Stewart, 157 Ind.App. 74 , 298 N.E.2d 509, 512-13 (1973) (discussing the statute’s creation of a qualified privilege for employers in libel and slander actions).

DENNY v. WIGGINS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … To withstand the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to show that (1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the particular right violated was “clearly established” at the

MCQUAY v. LITTLEJOHN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2021

Discussion Warden Brown seeks summary judgment arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. McQuay's claim. … Qualified immunity shields a state official from liability unless the plaintiff shows "(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of