Case law

ESTATE OF ANDRE ALEXANDER GREEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Dkt. 38 at 30.1 The Court exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Mr.

Fort Wayne Community Schools and Jacalyn Butler v. Steffanie Haney, for next friend and minor daughter, M.H.

94 N.E.3d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2018

And the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the violation of a clearly established right. Id. … immunity because there were clearly established doctrines at the time as to what actions a caseworker must take when conducting an investigation)

KEITH v. VANDINE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2022

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) ("[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether … "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.

SWEENEY v. MULL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2022

Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129–31 (1997) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for preparing and filing documents, but not for personally swearing to the truth of facts establishing probable cause, which was the function … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissal at pleading stage on qualified immunity grounds is often inappropriate because qualified immunity "usually depends" on the facts of the case).

Strickland v. Shotts

408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004

Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.

Kemp v. Liebel

229 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2017

To survive summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish that the right they claim was clearly established in this judicial circuit. Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 767. … Thus we hold that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the “clearly established” standard sufficient to defeat Mr. Liebel’s qualified immunity defense to their claims.

Bell v. Fort Wayne Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2019

“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 … The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard in qualified immunity cases: Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

BROWN v. ROBINETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Fleming v. … Clearly, an entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be established by the mere incantation of magic words, purportedly buttressed by endless pages of quotes relating to the doctrine. Arguably, Ms.

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“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.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Deputy v. City of Seymour

34 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2014

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court considers it most prudent to proceed to the second question regarding qualified immunity — whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … First, in the context of qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized “[i]mportantly, the right must be clearly established in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.”

King v. City of Indianapolis

969 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … King’s right was not clearly established and Defendant Officers are granted qualified immunity on this claim. 2. Fourth Amendment Defendants contend that the seizure of Mr.

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "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.

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Slay v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

603 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1992

IV We next address the issue of qualified immunity. … Jones argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 In particular, he con *887 tends that the rights in question were not "clearly established" when the shooting occurred, in May of 1982. While Tennessee v.