Case law

Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management

84 N.E.3d 1185 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2017

Pulaski, in contrast, addressed a procedural question—what statutory language must the legislature employ to establish its intention to waive immunity? … But to overcome sovereign immunity, it must “clearly evince” its intention to do so.

Finch v. City of Indianapolis

886 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects [a government official] from liability if a reasonable [official] could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [official] possessed … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.1998), the Seventh Circuit agreed with sister circuit courts that a court can grant qualified immunity even when an official’s conduct violated clearly established law (which he is presumed

Marshall v. Indiana University

170 F. Supp. 3d 1201 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 15, 2016

Further, because Marshall has failed to identify a knowing violation of clearly established due process rights, as defined by Indiana law or the Seventh Circuit, the individual Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 236, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (holding that government officials receive qualified immunity unless: their conduct violated a constitutional right, and the law to this effect was “clearly

Harless Ex Rel. Harless v. Darr

937 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity of Individual Defendants a. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “‘government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Federal Express Corporation and 500 Festival, Inc.

6 N.E.3d 1006 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2014

Here, the designated evidence clearly establishes that both 500 Festival and FedEx provide or enable computer access for multiple users on their respective computer networks to access the Internet by means of the servers … Of course, simply because the defendants here have established that they are providers of an interactive computer service does not mean that they are automatically immune from suits.

Kathryn M Jasionowski v. Town of Whitestown

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a legal question for the court to resolve. Fort Wayne Cmty. Schs. v. Haney, 94 N.E.3d 325, 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Allman v. Smith

6 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity The final issue is whether Mayor Smith is individually protected from liability by qualified immunity. … As discussed in more detail above, it does appear that these two arguments have merit because the Cashier and Customer Service Supervisor positions are clearly ministerial functions, thus qualified immunity should not apply

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.

DeLaCruz v. Pruitt

590 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1984

Pruitt’s entitlement to a qualified immunity based on good faith. Harlow v. … result here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

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.

Row v. Holt

864 N.E.2d 1011 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2007

All defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting probable cause for Row’s arrest and qualified immunity. … This is sometimes expressed as a good faith defense 6 or qualified immunity. 7 Civil liability for common law false arrest is a matter of state 6 See e.g., United States v.

Hogue v. City of Fort Wayne

599 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2009

to qualified immunity. … right; (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Veolia Water Indianapolis LLC v. National Trust Insurance Co.

973 N.E.2d 3 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2012

“The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. If the evidence permits conflicting reasonable inference as to material facts, the governmental unit has failed to establish immunity.” Bules v. … “A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly establish that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts

Brettler v. Purdue University

408 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2006

State Immunity from Suit Under Title I of the ADA Title I of the ADA prohibits certain employers, including the States, from “discriminating] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such … To establish a claim under Title II, Brettler must prove: (1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; and (3) that he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs,

Board of School Commissioners v. Pettigrew

851 N.E.2d 326 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2006

Because we hold that the Board, Grubb and Torzewski are immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity, we need not reach whether the statements of Grubb and Torzewski were defamatory. … Defamation The Board maintains that even if the statements of Grubb and Torzewski were determined to be defamatory, it is immune to Pettigrew's claim of defamation under the doctrine of qualified privilege.

Newton v. Yates

170 Ind. App. 486 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1976

These, items were not gathered in preparation of litigation, and clearly are not a part of the work-product immunity, and are relevant. … A showing of “good cause” by the moving party will necessitate an overriding of the qualified immunity and necessitate production of the documents. Newton claims that she had met the requirements of showing good cause.

Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smith

682 N.E.2d 569 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1997

In support of the existence of a qualified privilege, Smith designated only his own brief affidavit testimony which is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, the existence of a qualified privilege. … Smith failed to establish, as a matter of law, that his statements to Kendall were protected by a qualified privilege.

Bean v. Indiana University

855 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2012

on qualified immunity. … of the plaintiff, and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established” when the alleged violation took place.

In Re Train Collision at Gray, Ind.

654 N.E.2d 1137 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 1995

Further, it is the challenger's burden to show that the alleged constitutional defects are clearly apparent. Matter of Tina T. (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 48, 56-57 (citation omitted). … permit other units to eventually qualify.

Evanouski v. Cantrell

58 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 1999

Judge Cantrell also raises the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Under that doctrine, once Evanouski establishes that his allegations make out a violation of a constitutional right, the inquiry becomes whether the that right was clearly established.