Case law

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.]

Maudlin v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

138 F. Supp. 3d 994 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2015

the United States has waived sovereign immunity with respect to its claims. … Plaintiffs inform the court of an absence of case law holding that FEMA’s map-making activities qualify as undertakings under the NHPA.

Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Minott

994 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity Finally, the FSSA argues that even if Rebirth’s constitutional rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because those rights were not clearly established … 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

Cole Ex Rel. Cole v. Greenfield-Central Community Schools

657 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 1986

Maxwell, (teacher): It is quite well-settled that all of these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 suit. Wood v. … plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Stout v. Illinois Farmers Insurance

150 F.R.D. 594 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 1993

Although the asserter of work product immunity bears the initial burden of demonstrating that its documents qualify as work product, we, as other courts do, employ practical presumptions. … The documents falling within this classification are clothed with a qualified immunity that is grounded on a proprietary aspect of the work.

Sheets v. Indiana Department of Corrections

656 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 31, 1986

Prison officials have been held to hold qualified immunity for their actions. Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281 (7th Cir.1981). … If the defendants have clearly violated the rights of others, even if not those of the plaintiffs, there can be no qualified immunity, as the defendants cannot be said to have been acting in “good faith.” Buise v.

CASSEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2026

Qualified immunity standard "Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law." Zorn v. … Officer Wassberg argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on any excessive force claim. Dkt. 61 at 15–17. The Court elects to begin with the "clearly established law" prong of qualified immunity.

WARNER v. ANDERSON HOUSING AUTHORITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084, 1090 (7th Cir. 2013). … Richardson violated a "clearly established" constitutional right, Ms. Richardson is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Leiser, 933 F.3d at 701.

State v. Internal Revenue Serv.

309 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2018

Qualifying relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property, bailee and bailor, and assignee and assignor. … However, they clearly may be in privity with the State for some purposes but not others.

Waters v. National Farmers Organization, Inc.

328 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 1971

Consequently, plaintiffs state that defendant is not operated for the mutual benefit of its members and therefore does not qualify for the immunity from the antitrust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as … These cases establish that neither the Clayton Act nor Capper-Volstead Act immunized contracts, combinations or conspiracies to restrain interstate commerce entered into between a farm co *1237 operative and other persons

Kodrea v. City of Kokomo, Ind.

458 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2006

Qualified Immunity and Individual Liability Defendants contend that even if Ko-drea’s speech is protected, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, if Kodrea’s right was “clearly established,” then Defendants do not have qualified immunity. The Court concludes that the right was clearly established.

Russell v. United States

626 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 1986

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity It is a well established principle of law that the United States may not be sued without its consent. … The statute and subsequent case law clearly indicate that the United States cannot be held civilly liable unless the tort-feasor is an employee of the federal government. United States v.

DeHarder Investment Corp. v. Indiana Housing Finance Authority

909 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 1995

At its simplest, however, the amendment immunizes a state from suit in federal court unless one of two well-established exceptions exists. 2 Significantly, for *611 purposes of this analysis, state agencies are entitled to … To have a constitutionally protected property interest, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Blair v. City of Evansville, Ind.

361 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 17, 2005

under Indiana law, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity protects an individual defendant from liability under § 1983 unless his conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable government official in his position

Kimbrew v. Evansville Police Department

867 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 1994

The potential for liability of Officer John Evans accordingly brings to issue the availability of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … This places on a civil rights- plaintiff the heavy burden of “establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right [violated].” 17 F.3d at 951 .

BUNNELL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 14, 2026

Qualified immunity standard "Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law." Zorn v. … Graham do not by themselves create clearly established law outside an ‘obvious case.'"). Instead, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must point to analogous precedent clearly establishing the violation.

BOYKINS v. GRAY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2025

Defendants argue further that they are entitled to qualified immunity because "it is not clearly established that it is unconstitutional for an officer to use a taser to get an inmate to comply when the inmate is being … "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

Buxton v. Lovell

559 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 1983

Minimum standards to qualify for a degree or title, as determined by recognized and qualified institutions or regulating boards, may be sufficient. … Assuming the Board had clearly regulated the area in issue, Mr. Buxton did not establish his claim for denial of equal protection benefits since no arbitrary or irrational classifications were sufficiently presented.

In Re Recombinant DNA Technology Patent & Contract Litigation

874 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 1994

Second, the Court stated that antitrust immunity was available when the challenged act constitutes action “in furtherance or implementation of clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy.” Id. … of power fails to destroy UC’s Parker immunity.

GREENLEE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified Immunity Standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Greenlee has not shown that he was deprived of due process under clearly established law, as required to overcome qualified immunity.