Case law

Brown v. Smith

21 F. Supp. 3d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity Mayor Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim asserted against him in his individual capacity. 2 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled … Brown’s termination violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Flenner v.

Borkholder v. Lemmon

983 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 24, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right *1020 of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v. … Here, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Borkholder “has pointed to no case that would establish the rights at issue.” (DE 25 at 12.)

Petry v. Lawler

718 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1989

“Scope of prosecutorial duties” is a key phrase in the immunity analysis. Actions within that scope are protected by absolute immunity, but actions outside the scope are protected by only qualified immunity. … The difference is critical-absolute immunity bars suits before any proof is adduced; qualified immunity shields defendants only upon proof that the challenged conduct was not in violation of clearly established law.

Buckley v. Standard Investment Co.

536 N.E.2d 311 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1989

Clearly, Citizens qualifies as a political subdivision under subsection (iii) or (x) of the definition quoted above. … In order to qualify for the immunity extended under IND.CODE 34-4-16.5-3(11), however, a governmental entity must satisfy several other requirements.

Bowden v. Town of Speedway, Ind.

539 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2008

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity for individual liability where the facts a plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time. … Plaintiff has not presented a closely analogous case clearly establishing that Bowden’s behavior lacked force.

Jackson v. Mowery

743 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1990

The Supreme Court has recognized that state officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v.

Owens v. Downey

150 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must address two issues: “(1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly

City of Crown Point v. Rutherford

640 N.E.2d 750 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1994

We had to send a form out to the people asking ... their income in between certain categories to see if they qualified for low to moderate income and those who did not qualify where the sidewalks needed replacement we gave … Therefore we decline to second-guess this decision which clearly involves the exercise of judgment and the formulation of basic policy on the part of Crown Point officials.

Grosz v. State of Ind.

730 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 21, 1990

While not entitled to absolute immunity, state executive officials, along with certain other state officials, who are sued in their personal capacity are entitled to a qualified immunity from damages liability. … Because this court can find no clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which the defendants should have known that their conduct violated, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to

King v. City of Ft. Wayne, Ind.

590 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 1984

The burden of pleading a qualified good faith immunity was on defendants. The defendants did not plead the affirmative defense of qualified good faith immunity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). … Further, while the individual police officers may be entitled to a qualified immunity based on good faith, the City of Fort Wayne does not possess and is not entitled to any qualified immunity based on good faith.

Bray Ex Rel. Bray v. Hobart City School Corp.

818 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 1993

Qualified immunity may be granted to a governmental official who was performing a discretionary function and whose conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Therefore, since the state administrative scheme did not clearly violate an established federal right, Owens is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gonsalves v. Cleveland

980 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

But unless police officers have violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,’ ” they enjoy qualified immunity from any suit for civil damages for their official conduct. Pearson v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, courts may assess first the occurrence of a statutory or constitutional violation, and then whether the right involved was clearly established, as was mandated by Saucier v.

State ex rel. Walker v. Green

112 Ind. 462 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1887

Now the Legislature saAv fit, in establishing this test, to except from its provisions a certain class of physicians and surgeons; in so doing it in effect declared — to state the extreme case— that the physician or surgeon … But counsel clearly err, we think, in claiming that the-right acquired by the licensee, under such a license, is, in the proper or legal sense of the word, a franchise.

Marshall v. Town of Merrillville

228 F. Supp. 3d 853 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2017

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sims v. Barnes

689 N.E.2d 734 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1997

Were a prosecutor granted only a qualified immunity, the threat of lawsuits against him would undermine the effectiveness of his office and would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of his duty that is essential … In a defamation action, a prosecutor whose statement does not so inform will be entitled only to qualified immunity, for such a statement will have been made outside the scope of the prosecutor’s authority. 4 .

Zimmerman v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University

940 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 15, 2013

Gillilan and Hargrave are not entitled to qualified immunity because case law “clearly establishes] that the authority of school officials to regulate student speech is limited to those instances in which the speech occurs … Gillilan and Hargrave are entitled to qualified immunity as to such claim as it is anything but clearly established.

Wallace v. Estate of Davies Ex Rel. Davies

676 N.E.2d 422 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defendants also claim that Hartman is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 because his conduct in shooting Davies “was not such that reasonably competent police officers would have concluded … Whether Hartman is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of Davies. 4.

City of Bloomington Utilities Department v. Walter

904 N.E.2d 346 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2009

In its motion for summary judgment, CBU argued that its conduct qualified for governmental immunity as a discretionary function under Seetion 3 of the ITCA. … The party claiming immunity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct comes within the ITCA. 3 Boyd, 890 N.E.2d at 800.

Martin v. Heffelfinger

744 N.E.2d 555 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2001

The trial court held that Judge Hef-felfinger, in his official capacity, did not qualify under the prescribed meaning of "person" under § 1983, and therefore, he was immune from suit. Record at 30. … Martin contends that Judge Heffelfinger is clearly a state employee, and as his supervisors, Chief Justice Shepard, Governor O'Bannon, and the State had a duty to train him.

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. White

775 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2002

He saw no difference in conducting a qualified safety inspection in any of the states he was licensed in, because the National Board of Inspection Code establishes guidelines and procedures for the safe inspection of boilers … Our review of the evidence as a whole shows that Nasatka clearly performed an inspection for state certification purposes and that a copy of his report was made available to Hartford’s underwriting department.