Case law

Laketon Asphalt & Refining, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior

476 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 1979

Justice Stewart defined its parameters in Roth, supra : To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. … The Geological Survey was established by statute in the Department of the Interior in 1879.

Hendry v. GTE North, Inc.

896 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 1995

Initially, however, the Plaintiff has the burden to establish that she is "disabled" and "qualified" to perform the essential functions of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodation, Dutton v. … Qualified Individual Next, Hendry must either establish, or raise an issue of fact about, whether she was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job at GTE with or without

Lutz v. Purdue University

133 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2001

Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , 96 S.Ct. 2666 , 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that sovereign immunity is limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. … These positions clearly belie the assertion that Lutz has been blacklisted from his chosen field.

Rodriguez v. ATF UC 3749

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

Because Spadafora did not withdraw his Affirmative Defense 6 as to qualified immunity and Judge Martin determined that he sufficiently pled qualified immunity, there is no clear error in Judge Martin granting Defendant … “Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed at the

Bollenbacher v. Helena Chemical Co.

934 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 1996

Indeed, in order to state a prima facie ease of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a). … Therefore, claims Helena, plaintiff clearly does not fit the definition of a “qualified individual with a disability,” which is defined as a person “with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform

McKeown v. LTV Steel Co.

117 F.R.D. 139 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 1987

The foregoing arguments and other positions taken by the plaintiff have been clearly and repeatedly rejected by this and every other court to review them. See, e.g., Edgar v. … Four criteria must be established before the doctrine of collateral estoppel is invoked: (1) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior adjudication; (2) the issue was actually litigated and

Rodriguez v. ATF UC 3749

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2023

Spadafora and Scott’s Affirmative Defense 6 asserts qualified, absolute, and/or sovereign immunity. Spadafora and Scott withdrew their defenses of absolute and sovereign immunity. … Defendants have sufficiently pleaded an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. iv.

Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Siegel

625 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 2, 1986

The fact that an official at Global told Campton that Ackerman could qualify for coverage if he received five additional hours of instruction is completely irrelevant to what Ackerman would need to do to qualify under the … These admissions clearly establish that the $46.00 per hour fee was a “charge” — that is, a payment beyond direct operating costs— which takes the February 13, 1983 use of the plane outside of the limits of the “Pleasure

United States ex rel. Marks v. Brooks

32 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 1940

This is clearly stated by the provisions of Section 265 of the Judicial Code, Title 28 U.S. … A boundary line was established between the lands of the United States and lands of 14 tribes of Indians, including the Miamis.

Buggs v. McNulty

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2025

Buggs asserts McNulty is not entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct “violates clearly established constitutional rights.” [DE 51 at 4]. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Doxator v. O’Brien, 39 F.4th 852, 863 (7th Cir. 2022).

Cripe v. Henkel Corp.

318 F.R.D. 356 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 2017

Cripe’s injuries, and readily acknowledged that she is not qualified to do so. … Cripe’s treating doctors on the cause of his injuries qualify as expert testimony.

Spural-Harris v. Black

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

immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not C.

Zingmond v. Harger

602 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 1985

The jail rules comply with the standards established by the Indiana Department of Corrections. … Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) there was immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against municipalities.

Ezpeleta v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp.

621 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 9, 1985

The defendant’s medical staff bylaws clearly indicate that probation staff members are not afforded the same procedural protections and review rights concerning adverse actions such as termination of privileges. … It is not unreasonable to allow physicians from allied fields such as surgery to assist in making an evaluation of whether an anesthesiologist is qualified and has the necessary training, skills or motivation.

Browell v. Davidson

595 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2009

Clearly the officers were attempting to apprehend the likely armed Lile, a legitimate governmental interest, and not intending to harm Ms. Browell. … Lastly, Defendants have asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

ESTATE OF CONNER BY CONNER v. Ambrose

990 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 1997

Furthermore, based on the record, this court is not convinced that defendants are protected by "qualified immunity." The alleged conduct in the present case does not meet the test of "objective, legal reasonableness." … The entity, here the City, is not entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from liability under § 1983. Id., see also, Carey-Jones v. Duffin, No. 82 C 6285, 1985 WL 826 (N.D.Ill. April 16, 1985).

Hite v. Biomet, Inc.

38 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 1999

In the section 510 context, this approach requires that Hite establish a prima facie case of interference by demonstrating that she (1) belongs to the protected class; (2) was qualified for her job position; and (3) was discharged … The undisputed evidence shows that No-wak failed to meet his burden of establishing he was a ‘qualified individual with a disability’ at the time of his termination.

Hutcherson v. Corbin

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

Moreover, these factual disputes prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. See Smith v. … ” summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is inappropriate).

Stanton v. Aramark

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

“To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove 3 Even if a soy-based diet did pose a serious risk of harm, the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly … established that a soy-based diet is unconstitutional.

Sieberns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

946 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 1996

The fact that they went beyond the dictates of the statute by considering creating a position for Sieberns clearly indicates a good faith effort to find a reasonable accommodation. … The facts of this case clearly indicate that Wal-Mart put forth a good faith effort to uncover a reasonable accommodation for Sieberns and, unfortunately, was unable to do so.