Case law

PASSMORE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION -- PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2023

"[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … To meet that burden and overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must "show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the time of

Edward Skillman v. Ivy Tech Community College

52 N.E.3d 11 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

, unless a state has waived its immunity to such suits. … [14] Skillman also contends that the State legislature could have amended the MWL after the decision in Alden, holding that states are immune from private suit under the FLSA, to clearly state whether

Brown v. Purdue University North Central

91 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2015

Oct. 18, 2012) (Title II claim not barred by sovereign immunity); with Rittenhouse v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 628 F.Supp.2d 887, 894-95 (S.D.Ill.2008) (Title II claim barred by sovereign immunity); Doe v. … Even if this court found that defendants were not immune from suit under the ADA, plaintiffs ADA claim would fail, as explained below.

CHAMBERS v. HAMILTON COUNTY AND JOHNSON FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 2025

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability un- less the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly … that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Owen v. Vaughn

479 N.E.2d 83 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1985

Judge Vaughn is judicially immune from suit on such grounds. … Further, the Tort Claims Act, I.C. 34-4-16.5-19, specifically establishes a basis for attorney fees for actions falling under its auspices.

Perry v. Barnard

745 F. Supp. 1394 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 12, 1990

Clearly, Parden was read narrowly, see, e.g., Employees of the Dep’t of Pub. Health and Welfare v. Department of Pub. … Thus, Perry’s allegation that these defendants have a “custom or practice” of disregarding his complaints does not establish an exception to the state’s eleventh amendment immunity. 10 .

SAPP v. EVANSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2023

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Finally, and critically to this case, "once a defendant claims qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established."

Porter v. Bainbridge

405 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 1975

This procedure assures qualified and registered voters that their votes will not be diluted or nullified by votes of unqualified and unregistered persons. 3. … No facts are alleged or established showing any of the essential elements of a conspiracy.

Reilly v. Robertson

266 Ind. 29 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1977

These conclusions are not clearly in error and appear supported by the statutory references made, and stand unchallenged on appeal. … The man and woman teacher when considered at the point at which each is first qualifying for retirement benefits, each of the same age, and each having qualified by the same number of years and level of service are not by

International Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n

149 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 25, 2001

These communications are clearly ancillary to that action. … Clearly the case managers employed by the AAA are not charged with weighing the merits of a given party’s contention that a dispute is not arbitrable.

Kostanzer v. State Ex Rel. Ramsey

205 Ind. 536 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1933

It is clearly within the power of the General Assembly to fix qualifications for teachers and to provide for an indefinite tenure of position conditioned upon satisfactory performance of duties. … statute providing for indefinite .tenure of public school teachers, conditioned upon satisfactory services, in the absence of any provisions which would exclude any citizen or class of citizens from equal opportunity to qualify

Clary v. Lite MacHines Corp.

850 N.E.2d 423 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2006

Thus, BB & C would not be entitled to immunity under the attorney judgment rule. … We also note that judgmental immunity jurisdictions do grant lawyers immunity from legal malpractice claims where the lawyers' judgment involved a "clouded state of the law," ie., a point of law that is unsettled.

Porter County Sheriff's Department v. Brooks C.C. Willmon (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2019

Willmon cross-appeals, claiming Sheriff is not entitled to immunity. … “Whether an immunity applies is a matter of law for the courts to decide,” and “[t]he party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity.” Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v.

Stackhouse v. City of Lafayette

26 Ind. 17 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1866

The ordinance of the common council directing such public improvements is judicial in its nature, and extends immunity from private action for damages to those who perform the duty. But there this immunity ends. … The power and duty to perform the latter is clearly ministerial, and falls under the class of private powers. The principle respondeat superior consequently applies.” In Furze v.

HAYES v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 5, 2023

The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. … To meet that burden and overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must "show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the time of

STROTHER v. SCOTT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2021

“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.” … clearly established law.

City of Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Water Co.

185 Ind. 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1916

The allegations of each paragraph are clearly sufficient to show a prior user of an established highway by the public, and a change in the form of government or of territorial *295 boundaries would not defeat such dedication … But, on the other hand, “powers, the exercise of which can only be justified on this specific ground, and which would otherwise be clearly prohibited by the constitution, can be such only as are so clearly necessary to the

FALLOWFIELD v. State Ex Rel. Brentlinger

240 Ind. 543 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 17, 1960

The case before us is clearly distinguishable from the recent case of Kaplan et al. v. State ex rel. (1960), 241 Ind. —, 164 N. … Similarly in the case before us, the physicians or doctors could not be mandated in the proper area of their discretion or judgment within the limitations above expressed in their conduct of the physical examination, but such immunity

MOORE v. DAVIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 11, 2025

Qualified immunity standard "[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker, 736 F.3d 1084, 1090 (7th Cir. 2013).

In Re: The Estate of Al Katz, and Lawrence T. Newman v. Robert W. York (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” Id. … any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”