Case law

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2019

The qualifiers “generally,” “feeling at” and “preferably” support Days’ subjective reading of “reference level plane.” … Instead, Days’ proposal attempts to define how the reference value is pre-selected, but Days fails to establish why that must be further defined within the claim.

Walls v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2022

Gupta could have explained his finding more clearly, such an interpretation of his opinion is not reasonable. Dr. … Plaintiff points to the “fairly-clearly disabling opinions” of Dr. Gupta and Dr. Wood.

LigTel Communications, Inc. v. BaiCells Technologies Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2020

Indeed, “[a]n equitable, interlocutory form of relief, a preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Valencia v. … Restaurants, schools, universities, hotels, bars, and many retail establishments and businesses have closed.

Levendouski v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2023

Disability Standard To qualify for DIB and SSI, a claimant must be “disabled” as defined under the Act. … L’s established limitations impacted the number of jobs in the national economy that she was able to perform.

Hawkins v. Angle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2024

§ 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 … Angle had knowledge of or presided over his prior hearings isn’t sufficient to establish bias. See Piggie v.

Larson v. Davidson Trucking Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2023

Gibson’s original pre-Rule 35 examination report [DE 26-3 at 32-55], and so that report was clearly prepared under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), not Rule 35. Dr. … Gibson’s report was a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report or a Rule 35 report, the court’s holding in that case actually suggests it could qualify as both.

United States of America v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2024

This issue with establishing the Intervenors’ contribution to the O&M plan is ultimately by the by. … All in all, further discovery is not clearly necessary to resolve this motion.

ER Group, LLC. v. Great American Insurance Agency, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2024

In sum, the threadbare arguments before me do not establish a triable issue on Figg’s defense of impossibility of performance. … The bond does not specify that Indiana law governs to any suits brought to enforce its terms—but it does provide that no “suit or action” may be commenced by a qualifying “claimant” under the bond “other than in a court

Richwine v. Matuszak

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2023

The waivers establish that Plaintiffs waived many of their rights under Indiana law: 11. … Under Verizon and Hemmer, Plaintiffs’ claim clearly falls outside the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

United States of America v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2021

First, the Government Plaintiffs clearly considered the economic benefit to U.S. Steel in allowing the violations to occur. … The section additionally clearly spells out U.S. Steel’s responsibilities in the event of a wide variety of different violations that could potentially occur.

Indiana GRQ, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2024

The remarks must be “plainly unwarranted and clearly injurious.” Smith v. Hunt, 707 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2013). … IRG must establish that its costs were necessary and reasonable, U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. v.

Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2020

As stated in my preliminary approval order, Rule 23(a)’s requirements are clearly satisfied in this case. First, numerosity is practically a foregone conclusion in a large securities class action like this. … I’m hardly qualified to do that. But I can report on and utilize the top-line findings from each study.

Project Design & Piping, Inc. v. Siemens Industry, Inc.

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

Project Design performed on the contract without complaint to the Addendum, and thus, Project Design’s performance from March 2017 to July 2018 qualified as acceptance of the Counter- Offer. … “Once a prima facie case is established on an account, the burden shifts to the account debtor to prove that the claimed amount is incorrect.” Id. at 1091-92. (citation omitted).

Z.H. v. Garcia

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

In addition, the Local Rules clearly state that “[m]otions to publish deposition transcripts are not required.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2(3). … In fact, CCSD is requesting that the court not only compel the identification of all health care providers, but enter a qualified protective order so that CCSD can directly obtain all of Roberts’ medical records from all

Tartareanu v. United States

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

Those require a defendant to establish that: (1) before taking action, (2) he in good faith sought the advice of an attorney whom he considered competent, (3) for the purpose of securing advice … By analyzing each deficiency in isolation, the appellate court clearly misapplied the Strickland prejudice prong.”).