Case law

Nieto v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 4, 2024

Nieto was clearly aware of the 1-year statute of limitations to file a section 2255 petition, as he states his section 2255 motion was due on October 11, 2023. [Id. at 1.] … specifics as to the actual dates and number of days he was possibly denied access to the law library or had an inability to access his legal paperwork, and courts have routinely found that such a bare assertion does not qualify

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2021

LCI and IDS claim that “the record clearly establishes that LCI/IDS is the exclusive seller of the covered products, not the owner or the exclusive licensee of all rights of the IDS patents.” [DE 182 at 21.] … But “[t]o qualify as an exclusive license, an agreement must clearly manifest the patentee’s promise to refrain from granting to anyone else a license in the area of exclusivity.” Textile Productions, Inc. v.

Gonzalez Medina v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 2021

To qualify for equitable tolling, a petitioner must show: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently; and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. Holland v. … To establish diligent pursuit, a defendant must “demonstrate that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing his rights throughout the limitations period and until he finally filed his untimely” motion to vacate.

Andre v. Bendix Corp.

584 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 11, 1984

On appeal, the district court’s decision on promotion was upheld on the basis that the male who received the promotion had been implicitly found to be better qualified. … Franz’s conduct is most clearly demonstrated by his handwritten “Three Month Employee” evaluation dated March 6, 1979. As Franz admitted, there was nothing positive in it. (Facts 29, 30).

Strong v. Indiana Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2022

Despite Plaintiff’s conclusion to the contrary, the courts in Bennett, Brubaker, and Smith do not clearly establish that an attorney is automatically his client’s agent for purposes of service of process. … The inference alone, however, does not establish the necessary agency. See Lozanovski, 2017 WL 347451, at *4. With that said, the State Defendants have not clearly shown that Mr.

Spillers v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

A claimant qualifies as disabled if he or she cannot perform such work. … But Pavlicek does not mark a departure from established jurisprudence.

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Bledsoe

441 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 2006

Finally, UCC asserts several tort counterclaims in its amended answer that are not clearly discussed in its response to the motion for summary judgment (See Response, p. 3)(listing UCC’s claims). … The bankruptcy court likely is waiting to see if any claim survives in this civil case that may qualify for nondischargeability in bankruptcy and simply has closed the adversary proceeding for statistical purposes due to

Schwartz

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 8, 2026

To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Farmer v. … A preliminary injunction is a “very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Orr v.

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 2023

Before the Court will consider municipal fault, the Plaintiffs must establish that they suffered a deprivation of a federal right. First Midwest Bank Guardian of Estate of LaPorta v. … three circumstances exists: (1) the state law claims may not be re-filed because a statute of limitations has expired, (2) substantial judicial resources have been expended on the state claims, or (3) it is clearly

Noojin

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 2026

immunity will often apply to claims for damages. … However, because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, this question is best left to a later stage of the litigation.

Crumpacker v. Civiletti

90 F.R.D. 326 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 1981

Failure to Comply with Rule 8 It is well established that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint do no more than give notice of the nature of plaintiffs’ claims and the grounds upon which they rest. … The defendants raise several other grounds in support of their motions, including immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Hardin v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2020

He filed his present Motion to Vacate on June 10, 2019, nearly five years later – clearly outside the one-year time frame. … To establish diligent pursuit, a defendant must “demonstrate that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing his rights throughout the limitations period and until he finally filed his untimely” motion to vacate.

Holcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 26, 2021

Clearly, there was “no guarantee that this will make his life any better”. (Tr. 1286). … The Listings specify the criteria for qualifying impairments. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a)).

Golden v. Warden

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

This misunderstanding might qualify as a mistake under Rule 60(b)(1), but Golden did not file an appropriate motion within the one-year deadline set by Rule 60(c)(1), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly … court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Browne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2026

Specifically, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of … required Equifax to interpret the lease agreement, something that it is not qualified to do.

Ackerman v. Schwartz

733 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1989

The misrepresentations clearly “toueh[ed] upon the reasons for the investment’s decline in value”. Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d at 549 . … While Count V clearly states a claim under subsection (b), it contains no allegation that Mr.

Doe v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2022

Analysis A motion in limine will be granted “only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Hawthorne Partners v. … Defendants also argue that Manning is not medically qualified to assess whether Roe was incapacitated.

General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.

123 F. Supp. 506 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1954

This Rule clearly indicates that an interference is properly declared only when two parties claim the same patentable subject-matter. … That during that time they demonstrated the device and its operation to witnesses who were especially qualified to and did understand and appraise it and that it worked successfully.”

Smith v. Farley

873 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 31, 1994

See Traverse Memorandum, at 91 citing Schomhorst, Preliminary Screening of Prosecutorial Access to Death Qualified Juries: A Missing Constitutional Link, 62 Ind.L.J. 295, 301-03 (1987). … . § 35-50-2-9(b)(6)(A) that the victim police officer must be “acting in the course of duty” in order to qualify for the death penalty. The petitioner relies on Spranger v.

George Payne Jr v. Indiana Department of Corrections

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 4, 2026

To qualify for this exception, documents must have been made in the regular course of business. Id. … Curry, though clearly against Mr. Payne’s demotion, has little to say about Mr. Payne’s job performance before the demotion.