Case law

Clark v. Donahue

885 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

were not clearly established at the time in question. … Accordingly, whether a right was sufficiently clearly established for purposes of invoking qualified immunity is a question of law. Marshall, 984 F.2d at 793 .

Elliott v. SHERIFF OF RUSH COUNTY, IND.

686 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 22, 2010

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit concluded that no constitutional violation had occurred, and thus, did not reach the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 377 . … Qualified Immunity Deputy Drake asserts that even if he violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. The court thus turns, once again, to the issue of qualified immunity.

Smith v. Utah Valley University

97 F. Supp. 3d 998 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Thus, qualified immunity bars Mr.

Patterson v. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Burns

670 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2009

The Seventh Circuit has further held that the law has been clearly established for decades and that a defendant officer is not entitled to qualified immunity in such situations. See Newsome v. … Patterson has established a genuine factual dispute as to whether defendant Burns committed such a violation and whether Sergeant Burns is entitled to qualified immunity.

Keller v. Frink

745 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 1990

Qualified Immunity The courts have created the rule of qualified immunity to ensure that public officials will not be unduly pinioned in the performance of their duties by the fear of personal liability. Anderson v. … ’s position at the time the cause of action arose would have known that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Goldberg v. Junion

208 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2016

Defendants contend summary judgment in their favor is required because they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity is a “powerful shield,” Gregorich v. … This right was clearly established by the Seventh Circuit in Berkowitz in 1991, and then reaffirmed in Sparing in 2001, long before this incident took place in 2013.

Kirk v. City of Kokomo

772 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2011

Ultimately, the court resolved the search issue on qualified immunity, holding that it was not clearly established that searching the officer’s desk even without reasonable suspicion would violate the Fourth Amendment. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that their right to be free of such office searches was clearly established at the time of the searches, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

McConnell v. McKillip

573 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2008

and the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) if a violation could be established on a favorable view of the facts, whether the right was clearly established. … Here, there should be no serious dispute that the rights McConnell claims were violated were clearly established.

Ebeyer v. Rodriguez

909 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2012

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, it is Mr.

Lessley v. CITY OF MADISON, IND.

654 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2009

Royce is not entitled to qualified immunity for any of the surviving search claims. The test of whether a right is clearly established is objective. … For purposes of qualified immunity, the *902 district court decision in Gray does not clearly establish law, of course. See Anderson v.

HARRISON v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2021

"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 … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (denying qualified immunity because handcuffing prisoner to hitching post for hours in summer sun violated clearly established law).

Foxworthy v. Buetow

492 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2007

Qualified Immunity WCCD claims that it is entitled to qualified immunity on Foxworthy’s First Amendment retaliation claim. … is clearly established.”

Thornburg v. Dora

677 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 1988

Qualified immunity applies only to the extent relief is sought against an official in his individual capacity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Flynn v. Mills

361 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2005

If so, the Court must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ; Leaf, 400 F.3d at 1079-80 . … Accordingly, the Court need not proceed to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, namely whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Tibbett v. McPherson

5 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity Officers McPherson and Moore argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity even if the court finds that probable cause did not exist. … that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Prakel v. Indiana

100 F. Supp. 3d 661 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2015

Accordingly, there can be no dispute that Congress clearly and unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity for claims such as Mr. Prakel’s brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA. … To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he or she is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he or she was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs

Snyder v. Smith

7 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2014

dismissal. 16 When they are accused of violating a plaintiffs constitutional rights, state actors are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless they violated constitutional or statutory rights that were “clearly … a defense of qualified immunity.’ ” Alvarado v.

Pippenger v. Gruppe

883 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 1994

This was due to the nature of the qualified immunity defense, which imposed upon the plaintiff the burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights in order to rebut the … The party resisting disclosure first has the burden of establishing that documents qualify as work product. Hodges, Grant & Kaufmann v. U.S.

Turner v. Sheriff of Marion County

94 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2000

We also assumed that the defendants moved for qualified immunity and summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ knock and announce claims. 1. Qualified immunity for unlawful entry claims denied. … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to the substance of a plaintiff’s claims but an immunity from the litigation.

PATTON v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 2023

immunity arguments. … Sheahan, 218 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2000) (restating "well established" principle that qualified immunity applies only to individual capacity claims). D.