Case law

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.

DAWSON v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 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 … Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages if they did not violate a clearly established, specific federal right."

POINDEXTER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2024

Poindexter did not suffer a First Amendment deprivation; and (3) 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

ROSS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES

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

Further, "qualified 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.'" … Ross has also failed to cite any comparable case law to suggest that the defendants violated a clearly established right.

CALDWELL v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

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

Qualified immunity protects state officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To defeat a qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must show two elements: (1) the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that "the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

GREEN v. LIEBAL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 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. … 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

JOHNSON v. COFFEE

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

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … federal law and are not entitled to qualified immunity.

PEDRAZA PULIDO v. REYNOSO

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2025

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 … "Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. (citation omitted).

KEEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2021

“To overcome a defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … The court has discretion “to decide which element of the qualified immunity defense to address first. If the answer to either question is no, the defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Bailey v. Canan

82 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2000

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See id. … Furthermore, either Mayor Canan or Chief Winkle can succeed under a qualified immunity defense.

RODRIGUEZ v. MARTZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2023

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

ARP II v. INDIANA STATE POLICE

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

To overcome Defendants' qualified immunity defense, Arp must show: (1) that his constitutional rights would have been violated on the facts alleged; and (2) those rights were "clearly established" at the time … Because Arp's entitlement to process before termination of his employment status was not clearly established by January 1, 2019, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

MCCULLOUGH v. DOWNS

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

"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. … 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

MOORE v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 7, 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 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 the

BRUMITT v. SMITH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 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. … Defendants raise a qualified immunity defense, arguing that Sergeant Smith's use of force did not violate any clearly established right.

Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

296 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 7, 2017

However, "[a]lthough this Court's reasoning in the Buquer case answers the central legal question presented here, the facts are disputed[,]" id. , as is Marion County's defense of qualified immunity. Id. … case would likely involve an appeal of the qualified immunity issue, at least, as well as ultimate resolution by the trier of fact.

Castor v. United States

883 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 1995

They have fully participated with the generous briefing schedule the court has established and have expressed their claims in forceful terms. … Conversely, “Bivens and its progeny do not waive sovereign immunity for actions against the United States.” Laswell v.

JULIUS v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2020

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … In ascertaining whether a particular right has been “clearly established,” the Seventh Circuit looks either to binding precedent from the U.S.

GoodCat, LLC v. Cook

202 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2016

In light of the burden imposed on interstate commerce as set forth above, the court finds that the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds any purported benefits. … Principles of sovereign immunity would preclude GoodCat any recovery against Defendants. See, e.g., Cmty. Pharmacies of Ind., Inc. v. Ind.

PERRY v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2024

Qualified Immunity "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … "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