Case law

Hupp v. Hill

576 N.E.2d 1320 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1991

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity under § 1983, there must be a showing that the defendant violated a clearly established right: "in the light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. … Without an allegation of activity sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, there can be no violation of clearly established rights. 8 .

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

Kelley v. City of Michigan City

300 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2004

Warsanen Defendant Warsanen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 . … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for government officials in Section 1983 suits which allege constitutional violations.

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

Williams v. HAINJE

583 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2008

Defense of Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity requires courts to enter judgment in *970 favor of a government employee unless the employee’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Judging the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, using the force of a police dog on a person offering little or no resistance would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment such that a “clearly established right

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.

Shallenberger v. Scoggins-Tomlinson, Inc.

439 N.E.2d 699 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1982

Sub-paragraph 3 alleged that Tomlinson knew his clients had not signed the statement and that others had forged.their signatures; Sub-paragraph 4 alleged that the Committee had abundant evidence before it clearly establishing … In his complaint, Shallenberger alleges that the Committee members “ ... had abundant evidence before them clearly establishing that Defendant Tom-linson had made a false statement in his grievance but chose to ignore said

Gray v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA

693 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for civil damages arising from actions within the scope of their employment unless their conduct violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … of the actions was clearly established at the time of their occurrence.

National Engineering & Contracting Co. v. C & P Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

676 N.E.2d 372 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1997

Other cases said that these materials were work product but that the difficulty of duplicating them was a sufficient showing to overcome the qualified immunity. … DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS CONSTITUTE MENTAL IMPRESSIONS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY?

Wolf v. Napier

742 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 8, 1990

It is a closer question, but it *1020 is this court’s conclusion that those facts fit under the absolute immunity of Imbler v. Pachtman, rather than the qualified immunity of Malley v. Briggs. … Officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

LaPorte Civic Auditorium v. Ames

641 N.E.2d 1045 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1994

If Ames is correct, then LaPorte does not qualify for the immunity granted under I.C. 34-4-16.5-3@). Thus, we are forced to examine the meaning of the word thoroughfare as used in the statute. … Clearly the statute had to grant the Town of Chesterton immunity before it would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the plain meaning of "thoroughfare" as used in L.C. 34-4-16.5-3(8) includes sidewalks.

Bubb v. State

434 N.E.2d 120 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1982

It is clearly no violation of the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause to refuse immunity to defense witnesses. Id. … Unless the court finds that the issuance of the order would be clearly contrary to public interest, the witness shall comply with the order of the court.

Tilson v. City of Elkhart, Ind.

317 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity Even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the Defendants argue that DeJong’s conduct did not violate clearly established standards under existing case law and therefore he would be entitled to qualified … to qualified immunity.

Piggie v. Riggle

548 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2008

Qualified immunity protects only the person who committed a Constitutional violation, but who could not have known that it was a Constitutional violation because no court in a controlling jurisdiction had clearly established … Under the circumstances, however, qualified immunity is not applicable here because Ms. Riggle has not made the requisite admissions to support a qualified • immunity defense. See Jones v.

Underwood v. City of Jasper Municipal Utility Service Board

678 N.E.2d 1280 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1997

The party which seeks immunity bears the burden to establish that its conduct comes within the Act. Peavler v. Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 528 N.E.2d 40, 46 (Ind.1988). … The ordinance either qualifies as an attempt to establish just and equitable fees under I.C. 36-9-23-25(a) or qualifies as a change or readjustment of the fees under I.C. 36 — 9—23—26(d).

Reed v. City of Evansville

956 N.E.2d 684 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2011

Our supreme court has provided a helpful list of scenarios that illustrate when a political subdivision cannot claim immunity: [GJovemmental immunity is not clearly conferred to shield a government-employed lifeguard, otherwise … Likewise, when a governmental entity is otherwise liable as a joint tortfeasor, no governmental immunity is clearly extended on grounds that the other joint tortfeasor engaged in ‘the performance of a discretionary function

Hendricks County, Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green

120 N.E.3d 1118 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Assembly’s intention to waive sovereign immunity. … As such, a statute must contain “an affirmative ‘expression’ or ‘declaration’ of the legislature’s intention to waive the State’s immunity” and requires that there is a “waiver of sovereign immunity

City of New Haven v. Reichhart

748 N.E.2d 374 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

Yet the opinion takes care to establish that Reichhart’s claim was “legitimate”[5] and makes it clear that she was entitled to immunity from the malicious prosecution action because she had both “standing and grounds … Instead, we think it is clear that the court found a limited immunity from malicious prosecution actions for qualified citizens who bring legitimate taxpayer challenges against a governmental entity in compliance

Person v. State

661 N.E.2d 587 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1996

Pursuant to I.C. 35 — 47—2—3(f)(2) (1995 Supp.) a person must be eighteen or older to qualify for a license to carry a handgun. … But, a problem arises because a child who commits dangerous possession of a handgun also implicitly commits carrying a handgun without a license, because clearly the child would not qualify for the issuance of a license.