Case law

Reed v. Blinzinger

639 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 1986

The State also asserts qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. This defense is usually applicable in an action for damages rather than one for equitable relief. See Gomez v. … The Court finds this evidence inconclusive to establish congressional intent to apply the sibling requirement to Medicaid eligibility.

Shiels v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

154 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 1957

It is this court’s view that the tardy acquisition of BLE membership by these two plaintiffs did not immunize them from the penalties prescribed by. the agreement. In the Rychilk case below (Rychilk v. … That decision is clearly inapplicable here. Nor does the decision in Radio Officers v. National Labor Relations Board, 347 U.S. 17 , 74 S.Ct. 323 , 98 L.Ed. 455 , apply here.

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

LEE v. BIRD

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

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

Chester v. Purvis

260 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2003

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Purvis’ invocation of absolute immunity is also counterintuitive.

ROBINSON v. COCHRAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2025

Officer Cochran asserts that he is entitled to summary judgment through qualified immunity. … "[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.'"

CALAUTTI v. SHANAHAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 2019

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Because the Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

WILLIAMS v. LIEBEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 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 … This "clearly established" standard ensures "that officials can 4 The Court need not address Chaplin Wence's and Mr. Liebel's qualified immunity arguments.

GASAWAY v. PLASSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 5, 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."

KANABLE v. RAJOLI

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

Qualified Immunity The defendants also assert a qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability unless they "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

DAVIS v. DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF TONY SKINNER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2023

"The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 … "A state official is protected by qualified immunity 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 the

STARK v. RUTHEFORD

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

Qualified immunity protects public officials like these Defendants from civil liability under § 1983 unless the official’s conduct violated “a clearly established” constitutional right. Betker v. … Qualified immunity consists of two separate but related inquiries: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

BOSTON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

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

immunity because the alleged consti- tutional violation will rarely—if ever—be clearly established." … And, in any event, a lone district court case does not make a right clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.

Kentner v. Timothy R. Downey Ins., Inc.

430 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2006

Downey Is Immune Downey contends it is immune from suit under Indiana Code § 22-5-3-1(b) because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the authors of the letters made knowingly false statements. … Those facts clearly establish a legitimate reason for Downey’s July 17 letter, and a legitimate reason for it to have sent the letter to the persons in it.

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. … issue was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented."

MILLER v. PERRY

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

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit unless their conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … "Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

MABES v. MCFEELEY

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

immunity is not appropriate: qualified immunity does not protect actions that violate clearly-established rights, Anderson v. … In sum, a jury that agreed with the Mabes on key credibility disputes would be able to find violations of clearly established rights that occurred outside of any colorable claim to qualified or absolute immunity.

Carmichael v. Richards

307 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2004

Qualified Immunity. … “When presented with a defense of qualified immunity, courts 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

SHANNON v. SCHWAB

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 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.

BOYD v. NICHOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 2021

"Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the facts, read in favor of the non-moving party, amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at … 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.