Case law

Martin v. White

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2022

Rethlake based on absolute immunity and because Mr. … The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ.

Jordan Ex Rel. Jones v. Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n

813 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 27, 1993

I, § 23 of Indiana’s Constitution provides: The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, cannot equally belong to all citizens. … See, Haas, 289 N.E.2d at 501 (“It is well established that the rights intended to be protected under both constitutional provisions are identical.”); IHSAA v.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. O'bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer

886 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 1995

The director defendants assert that these attestations establish that they did carefully consider those transactions. … The court concludes that Harris’s experiences representing and serving on the boards of financial institutions qualify him to offer expert testimony concerning the duties of directors to such institutions.

Weidner v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2020

The regulations governing disability determinations clearly require that an ALJ consider evidence of non-severe impairments and any resulting limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1)- (3). … To qualify for benefits, Weidner bears the burden “to establish not just the existence of the conditions, but to provide evidence that they support specific limitations affecting her capacity to work.” Id. at 579.

Hogan v. Hershberger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 25, 2025

§ 1915A, the court must screen the amended complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Blankenship v. Unknown

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 2023

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cnty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Pontinen v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2021

The burden is upon the moving party to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. … Aita clearly stated that since it was Pontinen’s decision to stop taking medication, Dr. Aita would instruct him on properly weaning off the medication. Dr.

Harradon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2021

Although it may be true, as Plaintiffs argue, that “there are many factors in this case to determine whether Mya Lewis was a resident relative,” [DE 26 at 2–3], the insurance policy in question clearly states that a resident … And Plaintiffs have neither established nor asserted that Mya primarily resided at Anita’s home at the time of the collision.

Oliver v. Fort Wayne Education Ass'n

651 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 1986

As a result of the foregoing, Defendants have been deprived of rights, privileges and immunities secured to the Defendants by the Constitution of the United States, in particular, Defendants’ rights of freedom of association … Careful scrutiny of the proceedings before Judge Ryan clearly demonstrates that the federal plaintiffs’ rights were adequately protected by the state court action.

Merchain v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2021

At the outset, the Court notes that although neither party raised this point, there appears to be a valid choice of law provision in the limited warranty on the Merchains’ RV that clearly indicates Indiana law applies … That finding fits with, and is further supported by, the fact that courts have applied the UCC language establishing the statute of limitations for breach of warranty claims to also establish the statute of limitations

Groves v. South Bend Community School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 19, 2021

First, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … by the employer to discriminate invidiously against whites, evidence that there is something “fishy” about the facts of the case at hand, that the person ultimately hired was clearly less qualified than the plaintiff,

Pfeifer v. Armark Food Corp

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 18, 2025

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has long established “the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if

Dwyer Instruments, Inc. v. Sensocon, Inc.

873 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2012

(Product Comparison, ECF No. 108-27), and thus clearly conveys that Sensocon and Dwyer are competitors and invites purchasers to compare the different gauges. … This finding was not an explicit ruling on the protectability of the trademark prior to its registration despite the fact that "the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for

McGrath v. Everest National Insurance

668 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2010

Local Rule 7.1(a)-(b) Clearly, motion practice calls for a motion, a response, and a reply. See Goltz v. … See American International Adjustment Co., 86 F.3d at 1466 (“A lawyer does not buy immunity from a malpractice suit by hiring an expert to call his pratfalls ‘strategic.’ ”).

Mays v. Rubiano, Inc.

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

Mays doesn’t back up her allegations with expert witnesses qualified to opine on the issue, or any real personal knowledge. Ms. Mays’ math is speculative at best. … Mays’ unsupported statement that it is rare for a dancer to be declined the opportunity to dance at an adult entertainment establishment doesn’t establish any genuine dispute of material fact for trial.

United States v. Hughes

823 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 3, 1993

The information provided by these employees established the following: 1. … 1279 n. 4 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 847 , 107 S.Ct. 168 , 93 L.Ed.2d 106 (1986), the Seventh Circuit, speaking through Judge Wood, found a warrant sufficiently particular where it stated certain items and used the qualifying

Jackson, III v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 2025

As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012) (citation omitted); Coleman v. … We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of §2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions.

Polycon Industries Inc v. R & B Plastics Machinery, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2024

In other words, the test for allowing the use of such evidence does not rest on whether the terms are clearly written into the contract, but whether the evidence is contradictory to those expressed terms. … Importantly, “[a]lthough an established course of dealing or course of performance may ‘give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify terms of an agreement,’ it does not constitute the agreement.”

Whipple v. Taylor University, Inc.

162 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2016

According to Taylor, Whipple fails to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action (Id., p. 4-6); fails to establish that he was meeting Taylor’s legitimate performance expectations (Id., pp. 10-12); fails to establish … of his duties with regard to the program, such an action clearly does not rise to the level of an adverse job action.

Reedus v. McDonough

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2022

Still more, if Case 1 survives the motion to dismiss, consolidating the two cases—at least for the purposes of discovery—clearly furthers judicial economy. … Finally, at least at this point, Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that her potential damages would be unfairly limited due to Title VII’s statutory cap does not establish that she would be prejudiced by consolidation.