Case law

BROOKS v. CITY OF CARMEL

District 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

United States v. Griffin

401 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.

Justice v. Justice

303 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2018

"To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that [s]he is a qualified individual with a disability, that [s]he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity … Accordingly, we find that the DCS Defendants are entitled to immunity from Plaintiff's state law claims under the ITCA. V.

TOWNSEND v. MCWILLIAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 2020

to qualified immunity. … Townsend must show a "clearly established" constitutional right to overcome qualified immunity).

England v. ENBI Indiana, Inc.

102 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 14, 2000

Although England has successfully established that she is disabled, as defined by the ADA, she has failed to establish that she is a “qualified individual” with a disability, for the reasons explicated below. 1. … Although she cites other production jobs available at ENBI, she makes no effort to establish that she was qualified for any of them. See Additional Material Facts ¶ 113.

Barnhart v. United States

721 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 28, 1988

It is well-established that the United States enjoys immunity from suit unless it specifically consents to be sued. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 , 100 S.Ct. 352, 357 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979); Soriano v. … The plaintiff did not file his claim with the VA until February 1987, a date clearly beyond the two year limitations period.

Robert v. Carter

819 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 3, 2011

Ability to Perform Essential Functions of the Job To establish that he is a “qualified individual with a disability,” Mr. … Robert must establish not only that he has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, but also that he is qualified for the job.

MASHBURN v. HECHINGER

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

did, it was not clearly established that their actions would be unconstitutional. … 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.

THORNE v. PICKRELL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 2021

Thorne was fleeing from a valid outstanding warrant, and that all of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. … arrest violated clearly established law.

Berg v. Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion County, Ind.

667 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1987

Of specific danger is the sexually transmissable (sic) disease of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, which is currently found to be irreversible and uniformly fatal. … Health & Hospital clearly has a substantial interest in decreasing the spread of AIDS in Marion County.

In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation

261 F.R.D. 154 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2009

Clearly, these submissions do not fairly qual *160 ify as supplementation. Allgood, 2007 WL 647496 , at *2. … Clearly, this discussion pertains to Dr.

HILL v. CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 54 at 14–15. … "A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458, 466 (7th Cir. 2018).

Legato Vapors LLC v. Cook

193 F. Supp. 3d 952 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2016

Indiana Privileges and Immunities—Open v. … clearly faster than it is blue.”

HUMPHREY v. CITY OF ANDERSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) he did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or (2) the par- ticular right at issue was not clearly established.

SHIRLEY v. RABERSTEIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2022

“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 … “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

Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc.

791 F. Supp. 1335 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 1992

Anti-GBM is an auto-immune reaction involving the glomerular basement membrane; MPGN is another kind of glomeru-lonephritis caused by an immune reaction. … First, the person must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed.R.Evid. 702.

Randall v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORP.

742 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2010

Because Weimer had three fewer years of seniority with the company and thus less direct experience compared to her, Randall viewed Weimer as clearly less qualified for the position. … “unless those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue.”

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023

Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law establishing a constitutional violation was not clearly established and "[n]o case law put [them] on notice that their July 18- 19, … "'[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.'"

SHIRLEY v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity Next, Cpl. … Deenik based on qualified immunity. Excessive Force vs Cpl.

VALE-GUGLIUZZI v. LAYTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 29, 2020

“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 chal- lenged conduct.” … "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