Case law

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

Lennington v. Graham (In Re Graham)

110 B.R. 408 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 1990

Specifically, the Court “is constrained to accept the bankruptcy court's findings of facts unless they are clearly erroneous.” … As discussed more fully in Part III of this Order, this Court must accept the bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous.” 2 . Whether a trustee qualifies as a BFP is a question of state law.

BONNER v. NUTTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 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 … There are three ways to demonstrate that a right is "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity: 1.

HARNISHFEGER v. KOPCZYNSKI

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

The Supreme Court holds that "clearly established law" in the qualified immunity context, "means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … The law to that extent was clearly established, and so Harnishfeger satisfies both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry at summary judgment. Kristofek, 832 F.3d at 798.

BROWN v. PERKINS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2020

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)

DAVIS v. NEW ALBANY, INDIANA POLICE DEPT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2020

The qualified immunity doctrine “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 … "Clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity means that "the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

HUSPON v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 2020

Both defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense. … Huspon’s claim survives the first step in the qualified immunity analysis. Officer Talley offers little regarding the second step of qualified immunity.

MCKINNEY v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 6, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers 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." Allin v. … to qualified immunity.

FORBES v. CERVANTES

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

Even if the alleged conduct in Claim I were held to violate a constitutional right, no such right is "clearly established." … Conclusion Cervantes is entitled to qualified immunity on all Forbes' claims; even as alleged Forbes' case does not implicate his constitutional rights.

MITAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 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." … Because we are able in this case to "rather quickly and easily decide that there was no violation of clearly established law," we turn immediately to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Pearson v.

JOHNSON v. JABKIEWICZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2020

He also argues that even if a constitutional violation did occur, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to information privacy when receiving medication is not a clearly established right. … Analysis of the qualified immunity defense requires a consideration of: (1) whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and (2) whether the rights were clearly established at the time. Saucier v.

COLEMAN v. BENSHIEMER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 2020

Qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 is founded on the principle that government employees should not be held personally liable "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Application of qualified immunity has two prongs, (1) whether the plaintiff suffered the deprivation of a constitutional right and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct

JONES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2026

When presented with a qualified immunity defense, the court must first “(1) determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) if so, determine whether that right was clearly … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the burden of defeating an assertion of qualified immunity rests with the plaintiff. Id. (citing Spiegel v. Cortese, 196 F.3d 717 (7th Cir.1999)).

MCCALISTER v. STEVENS

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

“Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would … The right to be free from arrests unsupported by probable cause has long been clearly established. Id. at 250; Humphrey v. Staszak, 148 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 1998).

HAWKINS v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity Finally, both Defendants assert 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

STEVENS v. POOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 1, 2024

"[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.'" … "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

Foo v. Trustees of Indiana University

88 F. Supp. 2d 937 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liabil *966 ity for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Whether the State Defendants will be protected by qualified immunity ‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken

Layne v. United States

190 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1961

Major Layne was at the time in question a part of the reserve components of the defendant’s military establishment. … Major Layne qualified for and received a regular pay allowance from the defendant under the said national laws. Title 31 U.S.C.A. § 698 .

RICHARDSON v. FREEMAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2025

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

TAYLOR v. MALDONADO

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 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 … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."