Case law

COX v. RANDY WEITZEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2021

"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 … "[A] negative answer to either one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity." Hanes v. Zurick, 578 F.3d 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2009).

FLYNN v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2023

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff "must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the time of the official's alleged

DeLon v. Eli Lilly & Co.

990 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 31, 2013

This lack of response is telling, as Lilly’s position is clearly correct. In Indiana, charges of discrimination “must be filed within 300 days of the occurrence of the act that is the basis of the complaint.” Doe v. … But the Seventh Circuit has also stated, rather categorically, that the “[i]nability to work for a multi-month period” precludes a person from establishing that they are a qualified individual under the ADA. Byrne v.

Reeder v. Carter

339 F. Supp. 3d 860 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 21, 2018

Failure-to-accommodate Claim In order to prevail on a "failure to accommodate" claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must set forth evidence establishing that: "(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer … Reeder were able to establish that he was a qualified individual, which claim we have rejected, supra , his discrimination claim would fail for lack of any comparators who are factually similar to Mr. Reeder. Mr.

Knox v. AC & S, INC.

690 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 1988

The accrual date in a case such as the case at bar has been clearly established as a discovery statute of limitations. *759 See, Barnes, 476 N.E.2d 84 (Ind.1985); Walters, 781 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986). … In addition, Dague Corp., has clearly established that the statute of repose places an outside limit on liability of twelve (12) years for a products liability cause of action in Indiana.

TAYLOR v. NICHOLSON

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

Nicholson is entitled to qualified immunity. "To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements. … Nicholson's claim of qualified immunity. Lt. Nicholson is entitled to summary judgment in his favor. IV. Conclusion Defendant Lt.

Wesleyan Pension Fund, Inc. v. First Albany Corp.

964 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1997

Wesleyan argues that, following the Supreme Court’s realistic approach, the various Clover Defendants clearly established minimum contacts with Indiana through their long-term business relationship with Wesleyan, because … Because the Clover Defendants do not meet their burden of establishing that Wesleyan qualifies as an exempt entity under section 23-2-1-2(b)(8), we need not address the defendants’ argument, premised on such an exemption,

Estate of Starkey v. United States

58 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 26, 1999

The IRC establishes duties on a taxpayer with respect to reporting taxable events and paying taxes. … The Estate argues that Kenneth’s intent with respect to this trust was clearly expressed in the codicil, in which he described Item V as establishing a “charitable trust.”

Jahns v. Julian

305 F. Supp. 3d 939 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2018

requirements to invoke the Savings Clause: *944 In the wake of Davenport , we distilled that holding into a three-part test: a petitioner who seeks to invoke the savings clause of § 2255(e) in order to proceed under § 2241 must establish … Erroneously classifying Jahns as a career offender and wrongly enhancing his sentence "...clearly constitutes a miscarriage of justice." Narvaez , 674 F.3d at 629 . C.

Kennedy v. McCarty

778 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 1991

“[T]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Governmental Immunity Defendants’ devote an entire paragraph of their summary judgment brief to their claim that governmental immunity pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3(7) immunizes them from liability for plaintiff’s pendent

Taylor Farm Ltd. Liability Co. v. Viacom Inc.

234 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 24, 2002

Taylor’s complaint is well-pleaded and clearly falls within the scope of the IELA. … Reply Brief’) at 3 (“Plaintiff does not even argue they [sic] qualify as ‘innocent purchasers.’ ”).

United States v. Clark County Indiana

113 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2000

Any revenues in excess of that amount were divided between ICI and the Army, pursuant to previously established percentages. … Corp., 987 F.2d at 431 ; Hirata Corp., 193 F.R.D. at 592 , the contracts between ICI, the Army, and the subtenants or subcontractors are clearly at the heart of this declaratory action and may properly be considered part

Hart v. Mannina

992 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2014

All of the witnesses stated that they did not clearly see the man who shot Duane, as the crime happened quickly, occurred at night, and his face was difficult to see due to his hooded sweatshirt. … Because the Court found no constitutional violation, it need not address the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. . The Court in Hetler also noted the same with respect to qualified immunity.

PERRY v. STATON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2021

Analysis of the qualified immunity defense requires a consideration of: (1) whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and (2) whether the rights were clearly established at the time. Saucier v. … Dugan is entitled to qualified immunity only if the right was not clearly established at the time.

Gluck v. Wnin Tri-State Public Media, Inc.

879 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 18, 2012

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he meets the required elements of standing. Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856 , 862 (7th Cir.1996). … This is, however, clearly the basis for his second claim because he alleges violations of his First Amendment rights and actually titles his action “Civil Rights Complaint.” [Dkt. 1 at 2.].

United States v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.

245 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2003

As I headed our enforcement division for a dozen years, that’s something that I clearly was troubled by. Id. at 21-22 . … As *1010 the Seventh Circuit reasoned in WEPCO, provisions in the CAA should not be interpreted in a way that “would open vistas of indefinite immunity from the provisions of NSPS and PSD.” WEPCO, 893 F.2d at 909 .

Myles v. City of Indianapolis

213 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2002

better qualified for the position at issue.” … It is clearly established by the evidence, however, that Ms. Beehler made the decision to select Ms. Devane and not Ms. Myles. Beehler Dep., pp. 14-15, 66; Cook Ans. to PL Interrog. No. 27. 5 .

MAYFIELD v. WIRE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2020

Immunity under the ITCA The ITCA provides immunity from suit for state employees for acts taken within the scope of their employment. Ind. Code § 34-13-3-5(b). … Because the ITCA does not provide immunity for false imprisonment claims, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for his false imprisonment claims.

WILLIAMS v. SHEPARD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2025

Holcomb were not personally responsible for Williams' conditions of confinement, and (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III. … Qualified Immunity Because the Court is granting summary judgment on the substance of Williams' conditions-of-confinement claims, the Court does not address qualified immunity.

HH-Indianapolis LLC v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County

265 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2017

The Indianapolis Department of Business and Neighborhood Services (DBNS) determined that, based on its invéntory as well as its intentions, the Store would qualify as an adult entertainment business. … Hyde, 665 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (on appeal from denial of qualified immunity), for the proposition that “a First Amendment as-applied claim lies when there is an application of an otherwise neutral ordinance to, squelch