Case law

KEEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2021

“To overcome a defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … The court has discretion “to decide which element of the qualified immunity defense to address first. If the answer to either question is no, the defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Walsh v. City of Michigan City

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2021

Under the circumstances here, Officer Henderson also has qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil damages “unless the plaintiff can show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time

McClain Museum, Inc. v. Madison County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Nov 7, 2019

(6) Establish a facility for display of vehicles and equipment. … The Museum argues on appeal that the Indiana Board clearly erred in its denial of the educational purposes exemption because military history “is both directly and indirectly related to subjects taught at our tax supported

Holt v. City of Bloomington

181 Ind. App. 179 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1979

Furthermore, Holt says, Indiana case law has established that a statute is to be construed prospectively unless language in the statute clearly indicates a legislative intent to make it apply retroactively. … Our Supreme Court largely eliminated the last vestiges of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity of the State in Campbell v.

PEDRAZA PULIDO v. REYNOSO

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2025

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 … "Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. (citation omitted).

Morris Gydesen v. Brian Miller, Officer, et al.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 2026

to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. … A plaintiff may defeat a qualified immunity defense by “pointing to a clearly analogous case establishing a right to be free from the specific conduct at issue” or by showing that “the conduct at issue is so egregious that

Fifth Third Bank Ex Rel. Bozik v. CSX Corp.

306 F. Supp. 2d 841 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2004

Furthermore, it has been held that the decision of the placement of stop signs is a matter of discretion, since the signing of streets and highways clearly requires judgment and discretion. … making authority by establishing a federal law requirement. ...”

Kittle v. Duneland School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 13, 2023

For the purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if “the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Third, even if a court finds that a right is clearly established, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the official made a reasonable mistake at to what the law required. Id. at 205.

Caldwell v. Wright

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 26, 2022

of qualified immunity. … Particularly in light of my previous determinations about the merits of Caldwell’s constitutional claims, Wright is entitled to qualified immunity given Caldwell’s failure to demonstrate that Wright violated clearly established

Doe v. Barber

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2025

The court explained that public officials could still be sued for discretionary decisions if those decisions violated clearly established constitutional or statutory law (akin to federal qualified immunity analysis … That said, Cantrell folds Kellogg into the immunity analysis of discretionary acts when the municipality’s actions (or the conduct of government officials when the focus is that) violate clearly established constitutional

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

575 N.E.2d 303 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1991

There is immediate and irreparable harm by the defendants continually utilizing such illegal regulations and/or unpromulgated policies as was established herein. … Clearly, the appeal was not moot so long as the state's funds remained in escrow under the trial court's invalid escrow order.

Shank v. Martinez

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2025

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Evaluation of a qualified immunity defense is a two-step inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Bailey v. Canan

82 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2000

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See id. … Furthermore, either Mayor Canan or Chief Winkle can succeed under a qualified immunity defense.

Cochran v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc.

175 Ind. App. 548 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1978

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE: THE INDIANA STANDARD Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. and defendant reporters argue that, notwithstanding the possible defamatory' nature of the articles, they are nevertheless protected by a qualified constitutional … It is well-established under the landmark case of New York Times v.

Juana Maria Ambriz de Williams v. Adrian Guzman Jr. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 2020

On July 5, the State charged Williams with cruelty to an animal and harboring a non-immunized dog. See 64D03-1807-CM-6318. … Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Porter County Animal Control rather than Guzman would be accountable if the alleged trespass is not subject to qualified immunity.

Parks v. State

789 N.E.2d 40 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Stated even more clearly, we generally will affirm a decision concerning a discretionary motion to amend if there is any rational basis for the decision. Strodtman v. … A review of the motions reveals that dismissal was sought on the following grounds: (1) general immunity of opposing counsel, (2) immunity of successful party opponent for actions undertaken in litigating prior lawsuit (8

State v. Magnuson

488 N.E.2d 743 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1986

Immunity from liability. … Expert testimony established that the reduced speed limit applied when children were arriving at or leaving the school grounds.

Smith v. State

500 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

First, he main *192 tains that the identification evidence does not establish that he was the perpetrator. … The victim testified that she could see Smith clearly in court and that he was the man who raped her. A rape conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Rutledge v.

T.Z., By and Through his Parent and Legal Guardian, P.Z. v. Tippecanoe School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2023

qualified immunity.” … The court later concluded that the plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. at 892–93.

Estate of Kelly Ecker, by its Personal Representative, Patricia Ann Leturgez v. Estate of George Scott Samson

59 N.E.3d 282 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Our standard of review is well established: When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. … Here, the exclusions of the nonprobate statute are clearly set forth, and we are required to determine whether a contract falls within its purview.