Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,515 results
0.85s
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2025
Bartole’s allegations are clearly a challenge to the decision to confiscate his tablet device rather than a challenge to whether the Sheriff has the constitutional authority to hold him in custody in connection with his … Only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing Section 1915(g). Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 2022
High-level officials cannot be expected to respond to “clearly localized, non- systemic violations.” Antonelli v. … Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1429 (7th Cir. 1996) (dismissing claims against sheriff and director of Department of Corrections because they involved “clearly localized” issues).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 29, 2026
She alleges the statutory guideline establishes that these applications should be processed within 180 days (8 U.S.C. § 1571(b)), and USCIS has blown way past that deadline. … Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional requirements. Ctr. for Dermatology and Skin Cancer, Ltd. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown328 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 2004
The Defendants argue that the experts designated by DIRECTV are not qualified to testify as such. However, in reading the affidavits of Barr, Rissler, and Walker, this Court cannot agree. … If this is true, then even though the Defendants themselves may not have intercepted the transmissions, they were clearly involved in such interception.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHildebrand v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2021
DISABILITY STANDARD To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that she suffers from a “disability,” which is defined as an inability to engage in any substantial gainful … Moreover, in addition to her muscle weakness, Plaintiff’s steroid therapy potentially contributed to a weakened immune system and related illnesses that may have required absences as well.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFreedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools
207 F. Supp. 3d 862 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2016
Second, by qualifying this statement as representing the School’s intent “[a]t this time,” the School does not make clear what, if anything, might affect that intent. … The audience applauded when the nativity scene appeared on stage, but that reaction was not prompted in any way by the show itself (the choir began singing even before the applause concluded), and was quite clearly in response
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2025
Porter argues harm and cites just two examples—only one of which qualifies. First, Mr. … Porter argues that he was clearly an employee or alternatively that genuine triable issues preclude summary judgment.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 7, 2021
He was also worried about the side effects, especially the suppression of his immune system in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. Dr. Marthakis offered to move Mr. … Kimbrough requests that the court order that his condition be evaluated and, if necessary, treated by a qualified specialist. ECF 3 at 1. He is entitled only to adequate medical care as required by the Constitution.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHahn v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2021
Thus, she is likely not well-qualified to comment on the claimant's impairments and limitations. … Thus it is clearly not reversible error for the ALJ to consider daily activities in conjunction with other factors, such as ability to continue working and opinion medical evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVW v. South Bend Community School Corporation
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 5, 2024
In negligence cases, when “there is no genuine issue of material fact and any one of these elements is clearly absent, summary judgment is appropriate.” Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 403 (Ind. 2011). … To establish the second element, parties must typically “present expert testimony establishing that standard of care.” Troutwine, 854 N.E.2d at 902 (citing Snyder v. Cobb, 638 N.E.2d 442, 445-46 (Ind. Ct.
Cited 0 timesUnknownChosen Consulting LLC v. Town Council of Highland, Indiana
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 1, 2022
While Chosen now claims that the “decision” was not one “made by an administrative board or other body”—which conveniently deprives BZA of jurisdiction over the decision—it apparently got the message clearly enough to sue … To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must establish that she (1) is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities
Cited 0 timesUnknownChicago City of v. United States Steel Corporation
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2023
Ind. 2011) (dismissing state law tort claims are immune from suit as a matter of law under the Indiana Tort Claims Act). If there is no chance of recovery based on the pleading, a claim cannot possibly proceed. … Dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction is a qualifying failure and does not constitute negligence of prosecution. Huffman v. Hains, 865 F.2d 920, 924 (7th Cir. 1989).
Cited 0 timesUnknownYurchak v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2022
Nasr clearly found the same limitation in the portion of the form that references the C2 criterion. … Similarly, part-time work does not preclude establishing disability. Id. at 637.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 2022
The Court sentenced him to 144 months of imprisonment after finding that he qualified as an armed career criminal. (DE 56.) Mr. … Here, the record clearly shows that Mr. Jamerson is not entitled to relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCooper v. School City of Hammond
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2023
No one disputes that M.D. is a qualified individual with a disability. [DE 86-1 at 1.] … Under Title II of the ADA, to claim a public program or service violates the ADA, the plaintiff has to establish: (1) he has a qualifying disability; (2) he is being denied the benefits of services for which the public entity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 8, 2023
Florance’s minor expenses clearly fall within this category. … Florance qualified for the program, writing, “The Defendants decided that I wasn’t the right kind of disabled, or disabled enough, to qualify for cancelation.” (DE 1 at ¶ 30.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownLivesay v. National Credit Systems Inc
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2025
Because “[t]he self-serving opinion of the [P]laintiff, clearly not an expert or an objective observer,” does not create a genuine dispute of fact for trial, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not met her burden … However, as set forth above, the Plaintiff has not otherwise established that the Defendant’s communication was unlawful because she has not established that the Defendant violated the FDCPA under § 1692e or § 1692f, nor
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 2022
1915A, I 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 … Although Title II of the ADA provides that qualified individuals with disabilities may not “be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity,” 42 U.S.C
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna