Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,350 results
0.33s
District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2026
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) and they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCommunity Pharmacies of Indiana, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration
801 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 2011
A preliminary injunction is “an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Roland Mach. Co. v. … White, 941 F.2d 201 , 215 (3d Cir.1991) (“As to the inadequacy of legal remedies, the Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of retroactive damages against the [state] clearly establishes that any legal remedy is unavailable
Cited 14 timesPublishedDistrict 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."
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2025
"To overcome the defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, [Mr. … Garcia does not address qualified immunity and points to no law clearly establishing that it would violate his constitutional rights to place him in an upper range cell when medical staff have confirmed that his medical
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 2020
"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 overcome qualified immunity, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to [Smith] must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at [that] time
Cited 0 timesUnknown313 F.R.D. 72 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2016
Defendants argue Plaintiffs cannot establish commonality for the same reasons the plaintiff in Secreti could not establish commonality. … Thus, the issues of concern to Defendants, such as individual damages and the defense of qualified immunity, will be considered (assuming liability is found) in separate and individualized proceedings.
Cited 2 timesPublishedTORRES v. INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025
For the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, at the outset, Ms. Themel defines qualified immunity too narrowly. See Estate of Perry v. … Under that facts-based standard, courts "often cannot tell from a complaint whether qualified immunity applies," and thus a motion to dismiss is "rarely" the time to decide qualified immunity. Roldan v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMITCHELL v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2020
Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly … Qualified immunity is available to protect the Officers from liability unless it can be shown by Plaintiff that the Officers violated a clearly established right, based on closely analogous cases illustrating that the Officers
Cited 0 timesUnknownINDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER OF NAACP v. Ballard
741 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2010
immunity. … The court therefore does not need to address the City’s qualified immunity argument. 11 . The plaintiffs' response brief states that plaintiffs Garza and Womock are not making Title VII claims. (Pis.’ Resp. at 11).
Cited 10 timesPublishedIndiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Smithville Telephone Co.
31 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1998
interconnection agreements, it has con- *637 struetively waived its sovereign immunity. … It does not appear that the parties in this action have clearly designated any of their acts as being under any of these provisions.
Cited 2 timesPublishedWoodruff v. American Family Mutual Insurance
291 F.R.D. 239 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2013
The work product doctrine provides qualified immunity for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party, an attorney, or other representative of the party. … When work product immunity does not serve such purpose, there should be no immunity despite what may best serve individual interests.” Id. at 616-17 .
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 28, 2022
Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that, even if they violated Mr. … has been clearly established for some time).
Cited 0 timesUnknown74 B.R. 963 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 1987
establishing the grounds for such transfer, when supposedly competent businessmen part with large sums of money and retain no records and request no documentation, the transaction hardly qualifies as ordinary. … As stated earlier, the record on appeal does not establish that Graham or Purnell-Graham Company owed McDonald any money or that McDonald transferred those obligations to Ontario, Inc.
Cited 14 timesPublished499 B.R. 617 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 8, 2013
Ball State is a state institution of higher education established under Ind. Code § 21-19-2 . (Brief, p. 1.) 2. … The cases Ball State cites in support of its argument are factually distinguishable because funds clearly changed hands.
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021
Officer Jones asserts qualified immunity. … “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.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2020
To overcome qualified immunity, Brooks must show there was a clearly-established constitutional right (defined with appropriate specificity) at the time of the incident, see Hernandez v. … Regarding Haney's claim to qualified immunity, in making this determination, the Court considers whether the facts demonstrate a constitutional violation and whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 17, 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 … constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."
Cited 0 timesUnknown401 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 3, 1975
Area management broker contracts are awarded based on a bidding procedure among qualified real estate brokers in a given area. … A contracting officer for HUD awards the area contract to the lowest bidder qualifying under HUD standards.
Cited 10 timesPublished874 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 1995
Plaintiffs ability to prove her case has clearly been burdened by Defendants’ destruction of the relevant employment records. … In support of their contention, the Judges argue,that the record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff was less qualified than the individuals selected in either 1987 or 1989.
Cited 9 timesPublishedHenderson v. Zurn Industries, Inc.
131 F.R.D. 560 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 14, 1990
The problem, however, lies in whether such statements are excluded under the “work product” doctrine that was established in the landmark decision of Hick *569 man v. … The buyer asserted that the two documents were protected by Rule 26(b)(3)’s work product immunity. Id. at 1118 .
Cited 34 timesPublished
Ask Donna