Case law

McComas v. Brickley

819 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights reasonably knowable at the … If such a violation has been established by the facts, the court must determine whether the law was “clearly established” at the relevant time. Id.

Long v. Turner

664 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants, alternatively, request that the individual defendants be afforded qualified immunity based on the fact that the evidence establishes that they acted in good faith and not contrary to clearly … Long is obligated to prove not that the standards in general are clearly established, but that the right in this particular factual context is clearly established, Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551, 554 (7th Cir.1989).

Lenn v. Gentry

762 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 1990

The test whether the immunity applies is one of “objective legal reasonableness,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 , the action being viewed “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time … not been so established as law, then defendants are entitled to be protected by qualified immunity from having to proceed in the defense of this action.

Felton v. Board of Com'rs of Greene County

796 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 25, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The principle behind the doctrine of qualified immunity is that in cases where “the law at the time [that a particular governmental decision was made] was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected

Brown v. Smith

21 F. Supp. 3d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity Mayor Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim asserted against him in his individual capacity. 2 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled … Brown’s termination violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Flenner v.

Petry v. Lawler

718 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1989

“Scope of prosecutorial duties” is a key phrase in the immunity analysis. Actions within that scope are protected by absolute immunity, but actions outside the scope are protected by only qualified immunity. … The difference is critical-absolute immunity bars suits before any proof is adduced; qualified immunity shields defendants only upon proof that the challenged conduct was not in violation of clearly established law.

Bowden v. Town of Speedway, Ind.

539 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2008

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity for individual liability where the facts a plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time. … Plaintiff has not presented a closely analogous case clearly establishing that Bowden’s behavior lacked force.

Owens v. Downey

150 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must address two issues: “(1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly

Grosz v. State of Ind.

730 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 21, 1990

While not entitled to absolute immunity, state executive officials, along with certain other state officials, who are sued in their personal capacity are entitled to a qualified immunity from damages liability. … Because this court can find no clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which the defendants should have known that their conduct violated, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to

Zimmerman v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University

940 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 15, 2013

Gillilan and Hargrave are not entitled to qualified immunity because case law “clearly establishes] that the authority of school officials to regulate student speech is limited to those instances in which the speech occurs … Gillilan and Hargrave are entitled to qualified immunity as to such claim as it is anything but clearly established.

Finch v. City of Indianapolis

886 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects [a government official] from liability if a reasonable [official] could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [official] possessed … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.1998), the Seventh Circuit agreed with sister circuit courts that a court can grant qualified immunity even when an official’s conduct violated clearly established law (which he is presumed

Marshall v. Indiana University

170 F. Supp. 3d 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 15, 2016

Further, because Marshall has failed to identify a knowing violation of clearly established due process rights, as defined by Indiana law or the Seventh Circuit, the individual Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 236, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (holding that government officials receive qualified immunity unless: their conduct violated a constitutional right, and the law to this effect was “clearly

Harless Ex Rel. Harless v. Darr

937 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity of Individual Defendants a. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “‘government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Allman v. Smith

6 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity The final issue is whether Mayor Smith is individually protected from liability by qualified immunity. … As discussed in more detail above, it does appear that these two arguments have merit because the Cashier and Customer Service Supervisor positions are clearly ministerial functions, thus qualified immunity should not apply

Bean v. Indiana University

855 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2012

on qualified immunity. … of the plaintiff, and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established” when the alleged violation took place.

Rebolledo v. Eden

12 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where qualified immunity is asserted as the basis for summary judgment, the Court must accept the plaintiffs version of the facts and determine whether they “make out a violation of clearly established law.” Huff v.

Irwin v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA

693 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2010

Their assertion of qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two step analysis to determine if the circumstances were such that qualified immunity applies. … Evans are not entitled to qualified immunity. Conclusion Based on the admissible evidence of record, Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion (Docket #33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BARNHOUSE v. CITY OF MUNCIE

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

Concerning qualified immunity, Barnhouse argues that, in 1992, it was clearly established that identification procedures violate due process if they are unduly suggestive—see Manson v. … established," so qualified immunity would protect the defendant from such a claim.

Flowers v. Carson

917 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a .reasonable person … We therefore find that political affiliation is not an appropriate requirement for the position of Deputy Constable, and that because this was clearly established in 1993, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity

Harper v. Auto-Owners Insurance

138 F.R.D. 655 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 1991

Clearly, such a finding would be unwarranted and the Court doesn’t understand Auto-Owners to be making such an argument at this time. … Asserts work product immunity.]