Case law

WILLIAMS v. LAYTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 8, 2022

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Officer Knapp argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law that he "could not open and close cell doors" during the incident. Dkt. 91 at 10.

Mirach

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2026

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable “for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because Officer Eber is qualifiedly immune from civil liability, and qualified immunity is no “mere defense” but total “immunity from suit,” Officer Eber is entitled to summary judgment. Mitchell v.

Chandler Natural Gas Corp. v. Barr

110 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2000

Therefore, all defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity under this claim. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Hargrave and Weis are immune from damage claims, but may be subject to injunc-tive relief under this theory.

Boussom v. City of Elkhart

567 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1983

The judicial construction of I.C. 18-1-11-3 since its inception clearly establishes that the Mayor’s powers of removal did not extend to the removal of policemen and firemen. … The standards regarding demotions and discharges of policemen and firemen were clearly established by January 1, 1980.

Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc.

982 N.E.2d 329 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

Specifically, Bailaban argues that Ind.Code §§ 31-33-6 grants civil immunity to any individual who makes a report of child abuse and does not restrict immunity to those who make a report to DCS. … In his reply brief, Bailaban argues that the behavior described in the e-mail messages in his supplemental appendix clearly falls within the conduct outlined in the Indiana mandatory child abuse reporting statutes and that

State Ex Rel. Haskett v. Marion County Criminal Court

250 Ind. 229 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1968

"It is well established that the privilege against self-incrimination protects against disclosure of facts involving *235 criminal liability and not against civil liability. … On September 20, 1967, the respondent court ordered the relator to be re-examined by two qualified physicians.

Humphreys v. Clinic for Women, Inc.

796 N.E.2d 247 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2003

The Indiana Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution, clearly permits enactment of laws that provide "disparate treatment" for different classes where the legislation is "reasonably … The test for constitutionality under that clause is established in Collins v.

Johnson Co. Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and the Johnson Co. Assessor v. KC Propco LLC d/b/a Kindercare Learning Center

28 N.E.3d 370 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 1, 2015

is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Instead, it complains that KC Propco “only presented evidence of a confusing corporate structure of multiple entities that did not clearly establish who owned, occupied and used the property.” (Pet’rs’ Br. at 9.)

SHINNEMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 1, 2022

a clearly established right to a seatbelt during transport under the Eighth Amendment. 771 F. … 2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct."

Denny Alan Neff v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

113 N.E.3d 666 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

Here, the designated evidence clearly establishes that Neff himself acknowledged that his employment was for an indefinite duration and was at-will. … [26] To establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a communication with defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, and (4) damages. Wartell v.

Yocum v. United States Internal Revenue Service

586 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 1984

Strict construction of statutes that waive sovereign immunity extends to the statutory time limitations contained therein. Riggs v. … United States, 575 F.Supp. 738, 741, 742 (N.D.Ill.1983) (“Section 7609(b)(2) establishes a jurisdictional requirement, for it imposes a limit on suing the sovereign.”). See generally Coleman v.

GIBBS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … "To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the

Indiana Department of Correction v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission

486 N.E.2d 612 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1985

Samuelson was, in fact, as qualified for the Reformatory positions as either Mr. Hipes or Mr. Fishback. Secondly, Dr. … Consequently, the DOC clearly established a factual basis for a bfoqg based on prisoner's privacy rights. We turn then to a discussion of the second required showing.

SPROLES v. BRIDGE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2023

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … Accordingly, the right to occupational liberty in a very similar context was clearly established such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

CISLO v. MARTZ

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2021

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that 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 … "To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show two elements: first, that the facts show 'a violation of a constitutional right,' and second, that the 'constitutional right was clearly established at

Keammerer v. Eldridge

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers 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.

Fowler v. Napier

663 N.E.2d 1197 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1996

Whether the trial court erroneously qualified Dr. Giles as an expert. III. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the DNA test results. IV. … We find no error. *1200 IL Expert Witness Fowler next argues that the trial court improperly qualified Dr. Giles as an expert witness.

Hudson v. Garab

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2021

Feller is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 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” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Teckenbrock

620 N.E.2d 740 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1993

The State asserts that to obtain a summary judgment, the Teckenbrocks are required to affirmatively show that they qualify for SSI. We cannot agree. … person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

GRIFFITH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 30, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … "To overcome the defendant's invocation of qualified immunity, [a plaintiff] must show both (1) that the facts make out a constitutional violation, and (2) that the constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the