Case law

Millspaugh v. Wabash County Department of Public Welfare

746 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Todero v. Blackwell

383 F. Supp. 3d 826 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2019

Because Officer *833 Blackwell relies on qualified immunity and the parties focus on whether his actions violated clearly established law, the Court exercises its discretion to begin with that prong of the qualified-immunity … Todero and (2) are regardless entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established right. Dkt. 116 at 19, 25. Ms.

Smith v. Ciesielski

975 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

In particular, the statute provides officials qualified immunity for “[t]he performance of a discretionary function.” Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(7). … As with common law qualified immunity under Section 1983, an official’s conduct does not merit exemption from suit if it “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

HOOVER v. GREYHOUSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2024

Hoover's right to meaningful review of his placement in segregation, it need not address their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Abbott v. … constitutional right was 'clearly established’ at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

BORONDY v. DRAHER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2022

A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor … Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity analysis if "every reasonable official would interpret [then-existing precedent] to establish the particular rule the plaintiff

ELLIS v. LAWSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025

"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 … Defendants frame their qualified immunity argument (as it relates to the conditions claim rather than the medical deliberate indifference claim) as follows: It has not been clearly established that using a squeegee

ROBERTSON v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2024

It is unclear whether providers hired by a prison to provide care to inmates can raise the qualified immunity defense. See Currie v. … constitutional right was ‘clearly established" at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

STEFANOV v. MCINTYRE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2023

"A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Stefanov has failed to establish that the constitutional right that he claims was violated was clearly established, Officer McIntyre is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

ESTATE OF TAVARIS McGUIRE v. BAKER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2022

"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. … The Court then turns to the next question in the qualified immunity analysis which is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time McGuire was arrested and under the circumstances presented.

Chambers v. Puff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

Lemmon, 911 F.3d 412, 419 (7th Cir. 2018) (finding waiver where plaintiff did not address the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity in the district court). … What this argument ignores is the fact that qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court to decide; the existence of a clearly established right is not an issue for a jury. Brown v. Knapp, 156 F.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

HARDIMAN v. CHIEF

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard "'Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have "violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … Because "[t]he principle of fair notice pervades the doctrine" of qualified immunity, "clearly established law cannot be framed at a 'high level of generality.'"

CHANLEY v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE INDIANA

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

The Officers argue that they're entitled to qualified immunity on that claim because "an arrestee's Fourth Amendment right to medical care . . . was not a clearly established right on October 28, 2019." … 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 person would have

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 2022

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor

SNUKIS v. TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2022

To determine whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether as of September 13, 2019, the law had clearly established that a police officer violates an arrestee's Fourth Amendment … As Plaintiffs note, in 2017, the Seventh Circuit clearly established that an officer's failure to take any action in light of a detainee's serious medical need precludes qualified immunity. 872 F.3d at 460.

Wilderness v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity Lastly, Sgt. … Haskell and Officer Sanders argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established law. ECF 103 at 7-9.

Burns v. Rekeweg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 2020

Defendants further contend that Deputy Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Burn’s clearly-established rights. … Therefore, Mendoza is entitled to summary judgment based upon the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. Indiana Department of Child Services

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 9, 2019

The Seventh Circuit has found social workers are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity in various situations. Brokaw v. … clearly established”); Millspaugh v.

Sharp v. Liebel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021

He previously only raised a qualified immunity argument on that issue. … 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

MUSE v. RHOADS

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

"Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right 'was clearly established at the time the challenged … Muse "has the burden of establishing" that his rights were violated under "clearly established" law in order to overcome qualified immunity. Burritt, 807 F.3d at 249.