Case law

United Hospital Services, Inc. v. United States

384 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 1974

The government does challenge, however, whether UHS’s stated purpose is a “charitable” purpose qualifying for exemption under Section 501. … These and other specialized services as set out in such stipulations clearly distinguish the UHS laundry service from ordinary, general or commercial laundry service as a matter of fact.

Lockwood v. McMillan

237 F. Supp. 3d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2017

McMillan is entitled to qualified immunity; (3) the Plaintiffs have not established liability under Monell-, and (4) the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. … Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not established that a constitutional violation occurred, it need not reach the issue of qualified immunity. See Mucha v.

PHILLIPS v. SURGUY

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

Finally, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … "A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he [or she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v.

JOHNSON v. DENNICK

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … 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.

Davidson v. Citizens Gas & Coke Utility

470 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 18, 2007

Clearly, Citizens can not deny that the test results here fell within those guideline ranges. … Clearly, the types of remedy arising from these two kinds of claims may differ.

MOORE v. DAVIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2023

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless [she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Dismissal of a claim based on qualified immunity is only appropriate where "the plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not 'state a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" Hanson v.

Terre Haute Warehousing Service, Inc. v. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co.

193 F.R.D. 554 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 1999

This clearly means that the Grinnell defendants’ motion could not be granted. … It does this through the establishment of the 150/45-day time limit for pleading nonparties.

Neff v. Hmurovich

261 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2003

Hmurovich and Vaughn are not entitled to qualified immunity. 6 ■ Nevertheless, even after making these assumptions in Mr. Neffs favor, we conclude that Mr. … If the answer to the first question is yes, we inquire whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Hope v.

RIVES v. WILSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2022

"[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 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 time of the official's alleged

SCUTERI

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

• 1.5 hours on January 9, 2026, to review Eighth Amendment case law on qualified immunity, because the Medical Defendants have not asserted qualified immunity in this lawsuit. … The Court also agrees that it is unreasonable to bill 1.5 hours to research qualified immunity for a reply brief when the Medical Defendants have not—indeed, may not—raise qualified immunity in this case.

St. John v. Town of Ellettsville

46 F. Supp. 2d 834 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 1999

Defendants also invoke various forms of immunity, including qualified, legislative, and discretionary function immunity. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. … Likewise, we reserve judgment on the individual defendants’ affirmative defenses of qualified and legislative immunity until the parties elucidate the undeveloped factual record and address the numerous neglected issues mentioned

SMITH v. CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

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

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 person would have … established" at the time of Defendants' challenged acts.

Bradley v. Work

916 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 1996

The Constitutional claims raised by the plaintiffs may be enforced through § 1983, which establishes a remedy for any person who has been deprived of his or her “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution … This Court has already noted that this ''hybrid” system does not fall clearly into either category of appointed judge, or popularly elected judge. See Bradley v. Indiana State Elec.

MURPHY v. LINCOLN

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

"Qualified immunity 'protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that "(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that [the] right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Leverett v. City of Indianapolis

51 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 19, 1999

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW To qualify for protection under the ADA, Plaintiff must first establish that he is “a qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 . … Assuming Leverett’s left ear hearing,loss constitutes a “disability” under the Act, Plaintiff must still establish that he is a “qualified individual.” See Koshinski v.

Indiana v. Internal Revenue Service

38 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 12, 2014

. § 36B; one of them is that the individual has enrolled in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) (defining “coverage month” for … This assumption is clearly incorrect—Kentucky has a State Exchange, and there are undoubtedly Kentucky residents who work for Indiana employers.

Higgins v. Koch Development Corp.

997 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2014

Holiday World moves for summary judgment asserting that the Higgins cannot establish that its actions caused the alleged injuries. … According to Holiday World, the Higgins must have an expert testify in order to establish causation and survive summary judgment.

BALIGA v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION

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

Moreover, Defendants offer no authority to support their contention that actions that are "inextricably tied" to actions that might qualify for immunity similarly qualify for immunity. … We therefore begin with the question whether the law clearly established that [the plaintiff] had a property interest . . . .").

HENDERSON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2019

Thus, “[a] state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or con- stitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time … Where there is a factual dispute bearing on the qualified immunity analysis, “a trial is required before a determination can be made as to whether [the defendant] is entitled to qualified immunity.” Chelios v.

COMBS v. ELIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 2025

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he [or she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct."