Case law

BOWLING v. CANTRELL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity Mr. Cantrell, Mr. Bills, and Ms. Dudley argue that certain claims against them should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "Because a qualified immunity defense so closely depends 'on the facts of the case,' a 'complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.'" Reed v.

United States Ex Rel. Durcholz v. FKW Inc.

997 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 1998

Midwest was a qualified bidder whom Strange believed to be the best company for the job. … The evidence establishes that the Navy clearly knew that FKWs proposal was based on the Midwest bid.

Trent v. Hunt

39 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 12, 1941

Boykin, supra, and said further: “No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. … ‘No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts.

HART v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 2020

Warden Brown asserts qualified immunity as to this claim. "Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, but once it is raised the burden shifts to the plaintiff to defeat it." Holleman, 951 F.3d at 877. … Hart must show that Warden Brown violated his constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time. /d. Mr.

Stockberger v. United States

225 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2002

As the Court previously concluded, those Indiana cases are clearly distinguishable from the present facts. … The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the circumstances the Seventh Circuit was referring to in Jackson .

EVE v. BURTRON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 11, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Ms. Eve's and Ms. … "A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v.

Eddleman v. Center Tp. of Marion County

723 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 13, 1989

I say “most laws of the federal government" because the two clauses are not clearly coextensive. … The Shapiro Court never did clearly define what it meant by the word "penalize."

DOE v. TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 26, 2020

State "officers are entitled to qualified immun- ity 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.'" … The Court will reserve ruling on whether Defendants have qualified immunity until a later stage in litigation.

Estate of Vandam v. Daniels

278 F.R.D. 415 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 23, 2011

In 1974, soon after the Indiana Supreme Court’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in Campbell v. … It is unclear to us at this time whether all three of these factors can be established.

Lucoski v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Lucoski)

126 B.R. 332 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1991

. *334 Thus, the district court will not set aside a finding of fact made by the bankruptcy court unless clearly erroneous. … To prevent too great a change, however, Congress established a monetary limit so that only small sole proprietors would qualify.

MULLIGAN v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2021

For their part, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because sovereign and qualified immunity shield them from the claims. (Filing No. 45 at 12-16.) … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228–29 (1991), held "that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage and thus had not waived immunity by not moving to dismiss."

GRIFFIN v. EVANS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 2021

"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. Pauly, 137 S. … Applying Sinn, these individuals are thus not entitled to qualified immunity because their failure to act violated well-settled, clearly established law. See also Gevas v.

Stack v. Allstate Insurance

606 F. Supp. 472 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 1985

Stack admits giving certain discounts upon the representations or promises of clients that they qualified or would immediately purchase items to qualify for the discounts. … The undisputed facts clearly show that both parties failed to comply with the provisions of the contract noted above.

DeWeese v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

120 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2000

This contradicts Bush’s testimony which clearly indicates that such a degree was not required. … [or] evidence indicating that there is something ‘fishy’ about the facts of the case at hand;’ or (2) ‘the person ultimately hired was clearly less qualified than the plaintiff, the hiring authority expressed intense interest

BIDDLE v. PERTORIUS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2024

CODE § 34– 13–3–5(a).4 To sue a government employee personally, the plaintiff "must allege that an act or omission of the employee that causes a loss is: (1) criminal; (2) clearly 1 "Mr. … Johnson's allegation that Officer Brown's conduct was willful and wanton." 2 "These disputed facts precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and the same analysis holds true here

Yeary v. United States

921 F. Supp. 549 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 1996

In addition, the federal government’s funding and regulatory oversight were not enough to establish federal “control” over the premises. See United States v. … That provision gives personal immunity to federal employees for torts committed while acting within the scope of their (presumably federal) employment.

COLEMAN v. ALICEA

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

The defendants argue that they should be entitled to qualified immunity on these claims against Investigator Alicea and Officer Fawver related to their refusal to provide a decontamination shower, as it is not clearly … Coleman to a prolonged period exposed to a chemical agent and were deliberately indifferent, and these claims cannot be foreclosed under qualified immunity grounds.

PENDLETON v. MURPHY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2022

Qualified Immunity Officers Dycus, White, and Murphy argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs' constitutional claims. … But it did not determine whether those private police officers could raise qualified immunity as a defense.

Heritage Mutual Insurance v. Advanced Polymer Technology, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 2d 913 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 16, 2000

Additionally, the policy established Heritage’s “duty to defend any suit seeking those damages.” Id. (emphasis in original). … Environ clearly referred to ownership rights with its reference to title (e.g.

VERMILLION v. FRANCUM

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

Francum violated his First Amendment rights, the Court need not address qualified immunity and the argument that those rights were not clearly established. … Turney violated his First Amendment rights, the Court need not address qualified immunity and their argument that those rights were not clearly established.