Case law

LeSEA Inc v. LeSEA Broadcasting Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2025

Hesse surely should have been aware by these points in time that her claims were clearly not viable. [DE 407 at 3-6.] … The Hinshaw Declaration establishes that a $14,000 portion of the fees incurred by David were reimbursed by LeSEA. [Hinshaw Decl., DE 410.]

Seegers v. Jasper County Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2021

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations defense qualifies as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ennenga v. … or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Ledger v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2022

Clearly, the evidence relied upon by the ALJ is far from substantial and barely qualifies as evidence. … Section 12.00F describes what qualifies as a “marked” or “extreme” limitation. d. Marked limitation.

ArrMaz Products Inc v. Rieth-Riley Construction Co Inc

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

Decisions enforcing the court’s local patent rules will be affirmed unless it is “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; based on erroneous conclusions of law; clearly erroneous; or unsupported by any evidence.” … The claim charts must contain the following contentions: (1) how and under what statutory basis the item qualifies as prior art; (2) whether the prior art item anticipates or renders each allegedly invalid claim obvious

Hill v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 2022

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 Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Rodriguez

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2025

the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … ineffective in his presentation of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, presumably to excuse the procedural default of claim three.2 As a general rule, errors by post-conviction counsel do not qualify

Sizyuk v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 15, 2023

Second, the Plaintiff argues the explanation that she had not established her independence from Dr. Hassanein was pretextual because she had, in fact, established that independence. … 1983 provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of [state law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Dixon v. Select Portfolio Servicing

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

Supp. 3d 234, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (dismissing TILA claim based on open-end agreement regulation because “[p]laintiff’s mortgage is clearly a closed-end credit transaction”); Nelson v. … RESPA requires that creditors respond to borrowers’ Qualified Written Requests (“QWRs”). 12 1 Under open-end agreements, the parties contemplate repeated transactions and charges may be computed from time to time on

Foy v. First National Bank of Elkhart

693 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 6, 1988

No Bank procedure establishes the frequency of floor plan audits. The loan officer or the approving Bank committee determines frequency, depending on the debtor’s financial stability. … In such a situation, a court must not apply by analogy a provision that conflicts with a clearly applicable standard. Second, and more fundamentally, IND.

Levitz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2022

“The Seventh Circuit [Court of Appeals] has not affirmatively established the threshold for the number of jobs in the national economy that qualifies as significant.” John C. v. … Clearly not.

Sapp v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2020

The ALJ did not clearly explain whether he relied on any of the VE’s testimony when reaching his conclusions at step 4 and alternatively, step 5. (R. 26-27). … Sapp failed to establish she was entitled to a direct award of benefits and finds that remand is the appropriate remedy. V.

Jarrard v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 15, 2023

As a general rule, errors by post-conviction counsel do not qualify as cause to set aside a procedural default. Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012). … However, as explained, errors by post-conviction counsel generally do not qualify as cause to set aside a procedural default. Maples, 565 U.S. at 280.

Patchett v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2022

To qualify for disability, a claimant must have a severe impairment that either has lasted or is expected to last for a period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 416.909. … further testing that may help establish the severity of her condition [R. 76]. The ALJ didn’t properly and fully consider the evidence related to Ms. Patchett’s reported migraines.

McKinney v. Superintendent

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

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). … We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of §2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings . . . of this Court’s decisions.

Skeens v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 4, 2022

Skeens didn’t clearly outline what additional steps he expected counsel to take. Id. Furthermore, even if counsel should have taken some additional step to obtain the computers, Mr. Skeens didn’t establish prejudice. … Skeens failed to establish prejudice. Skeens, 2020 WL 7019315 at 5.

Stanley ex rel. M.C. v. M.S.D. of Southwest Allen County Schools

628 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 2008

As noted above in footnotes 55 and 57, both Kris Kirby and Cheryl Carter were qualified teachers. *969 4. … As discussed in the next subpart, the teachers at SACS were sufficiently qualified and trained. .

McBride v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2020

adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … The Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants the right to counsel, but a defendant also has a qualified right to self-representation if he so chooses. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).

Gregor v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2022

“[a]n award of benefits is appropriate . . . only if all factual issues involved in the entitlement determination have been resolved and the resulting record supports only one conclusion—that the applicant qualifies … Nonetheless, while Plaintiff’s limitations may have been greater than what the ALJ documented, the evidence does not clearly confirm his allegations of disability.

King

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026

See [DE 45-1 at 17] (explaining that “[w]hile Reliance Standard does not dispute that Plaintiff may have been disabled beyond August 17, 2022 [sic], the record clearly establishes that she was not Totally Disabled solely … Administration (“SSA”) bolsters the argument that her physical condition is the cause of the “restrictions and limitations [that] preclude her from performing the essential duties of any occupation for which she is qualified

Culp v. Reed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2023

May 13, 2013) (“[T]his case was very clearly a mixed result case and thus would be an appropriate occasion to deny each side’s bill of costs.”). 3. … However, this factor is “not satisfied simply because [a] plaintiff establishes that his constitutional rights have been violated.” Id.