Case law

Snider v. Pekny

899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012

Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.

Lewis v. McCracken

782 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn next to the issue of qualified immunity protections, if any, available to Chief McCracken. … Qualified immunity shields McCracken from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken by him in the course of his performance of his discretionary functions, unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Clark v. Donahue

885 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

were not clearly established at the time in question. … Accordingly, whether a right was sufficiently clearly established for purposes of invoking qualified immunity is a question of law. Marshall, 984 F.2d at 793 .

Doan v. Watson

168 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 2001

Qualified immunity Defendants contend that they should enjoy qualified immunity for their administration of the strip-search procedure, pursuant to § 1983. … Officials acting under qualified immunity are not subjected to suit “unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights then known to a reasonable officer.” Ulichny v. Merton Cmty. Sch.

Oshinski v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District

843 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2006

And in the context of federal sovereign immunity-obviously the closest analogy to the present case-it is well established that waivers are not implied.... … Our supreme court's abolition of sovereign immunity in Campbell, coupled with ITCA, is a clear statement of Indiana's retention of only qualified immunity in tort actions, including FELA actions.

Weeks v. Hodges

871 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2012

Qualified Immunity Summary judgment may still be appropriate for the individual defendants if they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis cannot be disentangled from those disputed facts, and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. 8 IV.

Smith v. Utah Valley University

97 F. Supp. 3d 998 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Thus, qualified immunity bars Mr.

Brown v. City of Fort Wayne

752 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2010

Nevertheless, Brown can overcome the qualified immunity defense concerning the seizure of the video games and fur coat by showing that the constitutional right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … of qualified immunity.

Elliott v. SHERIFF OF RUSH COUNTY, IND.

686 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 22, 2010

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit concluded that no constitutional violation had occurred, and thus, did not reach the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 377 . … Qualified Immunity Deputy Drake asserts that even if he violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. The court thus turns, once again, to the issue of qualified immunity.

City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp.

126 N.E.3d 813 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 2019

We conclude as follows: (1) the City’s lawsuit is not an unlawful attempt to regulate firearms; (2) the City has failed to establish that the Amendment is unconstitutional; (3) the Immunity Statute does … A qualified civil liability action does not include (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or

McAllister v. TOWN OF BURNS HARBOR

693 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2010

Qualified immunity is a defense to a claim under § 1983, shielding police officers from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In the instant case, a reasonable jury could find that Defendant Price took Plaintiff to the ground so forcefully that he broke his hip. (2) Qualified Immunity Neither does the doctrine of qualified immunity support summary

Littleton v. State

954 N.E.2d 1070 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn now to the dispositive question here, whether the events of February 18, 2010, come within the qualified immunity extended to Littleton as a teacher in loco parentis. … She claims that her acts were privileged because they come within the qualified immunity afforded to teachers under Indiana law.

Oliver Ex Rel. Hines v. McClung

919 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 1995

The qualified immunity doctrine states that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … “A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context

Foster v. Pearcy

270 Ind. 533 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1979

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Pearcy as Prosecuting Attorney enjoyed only a qualified immunity for statements made to the press by him and his deputy Leroy New. Foster v. … He argues that the prosecutor, as a member of the executive branch, cannot claim the immunity reserved for the judiciary, but only a qualified immunity akin to that accorded other executive officials in this Court’s previous

Sharp v. Town of Highland

665 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 1996

The plain language clearly establishes immunity from liability for the death or injury to persons arising out of "[alll functions hereunder and all other activities relating to civil defense and disaster." … We will not construe an unambiguous statute for the purpose of limiting the clear grant of immunity. The unambiguous grant of immunity in I.C. 10-4-1-8 is not qualified by the language of I.C. 10-4-1-23.

Keller v. Frink

745 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 1990

Qualified Immunity The courts have created the rule of qualified immunity to ensure that public officials will not be unduly pinioned in the performance of their duties by the fear of personal liability. Anderson v. … ’s position at the time the cause of action arose would have known that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Williams v. Hall

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 9, 2021

Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706, 727 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Courts generally hold that the use of a taser against an actively resisting suspect either does not violate clearly established law or is constitutionally reasonable. … Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2018) (granting officer qualified immunity for administering four Taser shots in less than a minute during arrest of actively resisting subject). Mr.

Feagin v. Broglin

693 F. Supp. 736 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 1988

A plaintiff cannot plead around the qualified immunity defense by a broad statement of the right: ... our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more … Stoner, he should have known that his conduct, too, might violate that clearly established right. Supt. Broglin is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. Personal Involvement Supt.