Case law

Falls v. Town of Dyer

756 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 10, 1990

This court is well aware of the Seventh Circuit’s en banc determination in Rakovich that qualified immunity can be determined by the district court as a matter of law. … However, this court is constrained by the previous decision of the Court of Appeals and the mandate thereof and is therefore reluctant to bottom its decision on qualified immunity.

Carmichael v. Richards

307 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2004

Qualified Immunity. … “When presented with a defense of qualified immunity, courts must: (1) determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) if so, determine whether that right was clearly

McDaniel v. Sage

419 N.E.2d 1322 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 11, 1981

However, Watters testified she administered the shot in the deltoid muscle of the left arm, the area established by the evidence as the correct location for the injection. … Clearly, Nurse Jefferson was a hospital employee. She was acting as such when she administered the shot and made her observation of Mrs. Lewis. There was no evidence that she was ‘subject to the control’ of Dr.

Anderson v. Torrington Co.

120 F.R.D. 82 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 1987

He argues that Torrington has not put forth the requisite showing of substantial need and undue hardship to meet the burden established in Rule 26(b)(3). Torrington argues that Mr. … Three tests must be satisfied to invoke the qualified privilege.

RD v. Concord Community Schools

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2021

“A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” … Howard would not be entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law shows that such an invasive search requires more investigation and/or corroboration.

Scobey v. Beckman

111 Ind. App. 574 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 1942

therefore a qualified or base fee. … This condition as to use is clearly a condition subsequent.

Pierce v. Bank One-Franklin, NA

618 N.E.2d 16 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1993

The nonmov-ing party may rest upon his pleadings until the moving party establishes that no genuine factual issue exists. … In the present case, we find Bauer's communication to Epple is entitled to a qualified privilege.

Cindy Brothers, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Kristopher Stately, Alicia Arnold and Tiffany Arnold v. Lake Holiday Enterprises, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2015

Indiana Recreational Use Statute [14] Lake Holiday claims that it is immune from suit under the Indiana Recreational Use Statute. … However, the IRUS “does not create an immunity as to the premises owner’s own actions or failure to act.” 649 N.E.2d at 1030.

Fassoth v. State

525 N.E.2d 318 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1988

Fassoth stated he was testifying pursuant to a court order under a grant of use immunity. … The evidence established that Roy Watson was the drug supplier, and Monica and William Fassoth were the intermediary delivery people to the buyers.

Downing v. City of Columbus

505 N.E.2d 841 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1987

Whether the trial court erred and acted contrary to law in ruling that the actions of the City of Columbus, Indiana were valid and protected by the statutory immunity of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. 4. … Clearly, more than municipal interests are involved in the establishment of a state militia, and the state statutes would control over municipal provisions.

CALDWELL v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2021

Qualified immunity protects state 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 known … To defeat a qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must show two elements: (1) the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that "the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Richmond State Hospital v. Brattain

935 N.E.2d 212 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2010

Here, a record as to the SPD's legal position on the pay disparity had already been established. … Here, the nonmer-it Employees rely on the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Anita J. Woodson v. Rhonda Randall as Personal Representative of the estate of Joanne F. Roache

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2026

A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by the evidence or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if the trial court “relie[d] on an incorrect legal … [22] For these reasons, the trial court did not clearly err when it concluded that Woodson was required to “present [] evidence to clearly and unequivocally rebut the presumption of fraud and/or unconscionable

GREEN v. LIEBAL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 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. Pauly. 137 S. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009), the Supreme Court "held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more

Brooks

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

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Walker v.

Wilburn v. State of Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 2020

that it would not violate clearly established rights.’” … Accordingly, as this was clearly established law, there can be no qualified immunity.” Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. To Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., p. 7, DE 139. The Plaintiff fails to provide any further context or analysis.

State ex rel. Staff v. Barlow

103 Ind. 563 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1885

It is averred that from the establishment of the commissioners’ districts, in 1831, until the end of the term, in 1869, the regular succession of terms for that district had been observed by the several incumbents. … some other ground, he was clearly entitled to it without regard to the act of March 7th, 1885.

Hodge v. State

442 N.E.2d 1006 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1982

Deadwiler’s confession was confused and did not comport with the facts established during the trial of these cases. … Deadwiler testified that Fisher and McFarland were ■shot on the right sides of their heads when the evidence clearly showed that they were shot on the left.

Ledbetter v. Hunter

652 N.E.2d 543 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1995

Before a statute will be declared repugnant to the Constitutions its fatal constitutional defects must be clearly apparent." Johnson v. St. … "[The malpractice statute of limitations is clearly rationally related to its goal of relieving the malpractice insurance crisis.

BRADLEY v. KOZIATEK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 6, 2025

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he [or she] violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Bradley's Eighth Amendment rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.