Case law

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

HAMPTON v. PERRY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2020

Qualified Immunity As a final note, “to overcome a defendant’s invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … Hampton’s constitutional rights and Detective Perry is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

GUY v. OTTINO

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2023

Guy's Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional. [Filing No. 39 at 7; Filing No. 42 at 6.] … "'[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.'"

ANDERSON v. FLOYD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2021

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 right was clearly established at the time. Saucier v.

Barmes v. Internal Revenue Service

116 F. Supp. 2d 1007 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2000

The record conclusively establishes that the assessments were against Barbara’s Gift Shop, and its owners knew it. … The doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits this court from hearing suits against the United States unless immunity is waived by an act of Congress where the court’s jurisdiction is "unequivocally expressed” in the statutory

TURNER v. MILLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 2021

Qualified immunity shields "officers from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed." … "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

Vaughn v. Sullivan

906 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 19, 1995

The establishment of SSI increased the number of individuals previously ineligible for assistance under the state programs. … This is not to say, however, that 209(b) states are immune from all federal guidelines regarding Medicaid: “when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional

Indiana Pharmacists Ass'n v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

881 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 1994

The first determination that must be made is whether the Moratorium clearly forbids the establishment of Indiana’s copayment program; “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as … Sue Shields to review the remain *401 ing issues and, where necessary, establish a briefing schedule. It is so ORDERED. .

SMITH v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2024

The Court granted summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Officer Price based on qualified immunity because Mr. … The Court granted summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Officers Rilenge and Lamb based on qualified immunity because clearly established law did not support that

Daughhetee v. AMAX COAL CO. a DIV. OF AMAX, INC.

761 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 1990

It is well established that a plaintiff may pursue Title VII claims under either a disparate treatment or disparate impact theory. … The plain *627 tiff’s duties were primarily record keeping and she clearly had a problem keeping the records up to date.

Norris Ex Rel. Norris v. Board of Education

797 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 1, 1992

In fact, no published Indiana appellate decision has even discussed the possibility of establishing this cause of action. … This federal court must follow established Indiana law or predict what the Indiana Supreme Court would do were it to address an unsettled area.

Hartman v. Farmers Production Credit Ass'n

628 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 1983

Sue and be sued clauses are included in all statutes that establish a federally chartered corporation. … Congress very clearly did not intend remedies in federal court.

JOHNSON v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ANDERSON

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

Qualified Immunity Returning to Officers Thomas and Allen, CHA Defendants argue that the officers are entitled to 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." White v.

Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Brizzi

96 F. Supp. 3d 835 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2015

Although the State clearly was not obligated to make available this alternative avenue of providing legal child care in Indiana, having created a statutory and regulatory scheme that entitles qualifying entities to operate … The action was ultimately dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, but the Seventh Circuit first found such a process to be violative of the Due Process Clause, observing that while a state’s interest in child welfare

Woodruff v. Wilson

484 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 2007

, and that certain Defendants, namely, Coleman, Hornstein, McGee, Powers, Stark, Ellis and Connell, are not entitled to qualified immunity. … ABSOLUTE & QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Mason and Davis contend that as legal representatives at all times relevant to Legacy’s claims, they are entitled to absolute immunity.

Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

101 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 1999

The Federal Sovereign Immunities Act denies Canada the right to sovereign immunity for actions against it that arise out of commercial activities or torts that affect United States citizens. … It would follow that Canada does not have the power to immunize its corporate citizens from such suits, absent a treaty allowing such immunization.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health

794 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2011

It applies only to the extent that the provider “continues to be qualified,” as the Medicaid Act “clearly does not confer a right on a recipient to enter an unqualified [provider] and demand a hearing to certify it, nor does … services willing to render services in accordance with the fee schedules established by the state.”

HURT v. VANTLIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2019

They also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim because the law surrounding that claim is not clearly established. [Filing No. 429 at 8-9.] … The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court’s denial of qualified immunity related to William and Deadra’s wrongful pretrial detention. Hurt, 880 F.3d at 843-844.

LEWIS v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 13, 2020

Lewis is not entitled to summary judgment and that they are immune from his claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. A. … Lewis could establish a violation of his constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity "because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional." Dkt. 126 at 10. As explained above, Mr.

Indiana Voluntary Firemen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Pearson

700 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 29, 1988

In reaching its decision, the Court first found that prior authorities ... clearly establish that charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door-to-door, involve a variety of speech interests — communication of information … At the very least, however, these three Supreme Court cases clearly establish the analytical framework within which this court must approach the free speech questions presented by the plaintiffs’ complaint: a threshold inquiry