Case law

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.

Morkoetter v. Sonoco Products Co.

936 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2013

noted that it would go against the intent and purpose of the FMLA to allow an employer to “terminate an eleventh month-employee for simply requesting foreseeable leave for which he is eligible, when that employer would be clearly … To obtain relief under ERISA § 510, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) [he] is a member of an ERISA plan; (2) [he] was qualified for the position; and (3) [he] was discharged under circumstances that provide some basis

Levine v. United States

25 F. Supp. 2d 900 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 18, 1998

At best, Levine has an issue for appeal; he has not established bias or prejudice. … At best, Levine has an issue for appeal; he has not established bias or prejudice.

Toepfer v. Harter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2024

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The factual disputes above are material and critical to the question of qualified immunity. Flowers v. … Qualified immunity under § 1983 extends to officers unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. Id.

Kendrick v. Marthakis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity. Officer Idowu also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … violation for a reasonable jury, the law would afford qualified immunity to Officer Idowu too.

Johnson-Bey v. Indiana Department of Corrections

668 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2009

This is so because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.” Fymbo v. State Farm, 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir.2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). … A State may elect to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Indiana has not done so. Meadows v. State of Indiana, 854 F.2d 1068, 1069 (7th Cir.1988).

Duff v. Lobdell-Emery Manufacturing Co.

926 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 15, 1996

AT & T Technologies, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1993), but that case clearly states that "Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e) allows a witness to make `any changes in form or substance' to a deposition transcript but requires a statement … Duff as having an otherwise qualifying impairment, the impairment would not constitute a “disability” under the ADA. Mr.

Santos v. County of Lake, Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 2020

The term “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” includes “denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified … “Prosecutors may be entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions undertaken pursuant to their official duties.

Moore v. University of Notre Dame

968 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 1, 1997

Qualified Privilege Defense Defendants assert that their comments are privileged and therefore protected. … It can now be stated that by virtue of these guarantees, a qualified privilege exists for all media expression. Fazekas, supra.

Swimming Turtle v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS. OF MIAMI CTY.

441 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1977

In re-enacting Article III of the Northwest Ordinance the First Congress clearly exercised its power under Article I, Section 8(3) of the Constitution of the United States. … The immunity conferred by Article III is not limited to Indian Tribes but may, in appropriate cases, apply to individual Indians as well. There is no strict need to show tribal relations.

Doe v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege that Counts 4 and 5, brought against Rollock and Sermersheim in their individual capacities, are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … established rights.

Messer v. Indiana State Police

586 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2008

immunity. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944 , 949+ (7th Cir.1994) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the City as to plaintiff's Monell claim, and in favor of the officer entitled to qualified immunity in using a deadman roadblock

Doe v. City of Marion

196 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2002

Defendants’ 'Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to this claim. 13 CONCLUSION In sum, Doe has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to any violation of her clearly established Constitutional rights to support … Because the court concludes in this fashion, it need not address Raymer’s secondary argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 13 . To the extent Doe is attempting to assert that Lt.

Reichelt v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

923 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 1996

The Corps has established that an area of 6.40 square miles or more in Northwest Indiana generates a flow of five cubic feet per second. … The Site also does not qualify for NWP 26 because the wetlands are not isolated waters. *1095 The plaintiffs’ environmental assessment established that the wetlands on the Site are part of a surface tributary system that

Lerch v. Boyer

929 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 1996

This court previously granted motions to dismiss on grounds of immunity as to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Robert E. Grant, Judge, and J. … Nevertheless, to state a Bivens claim, the defendant must be a federal officer and must not have judicial immunity from suit.

Flores

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2026

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Washington lied in the first and second sentences because they are not clearly supported by the surveillance video. … Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by qualified immunity, because there is no evidence, at all, that Defendants used force against Plaintiff, “let alone deadly or excessive force.”

Nunnery v. Elgin Joliet Eastern Railway Co.

48 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 1999

Therefore, to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, plaintiff must show: (1) that he is within a protected class; (2) that he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) that he was qualified; and (4 … Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that he was denied this training is clearly unfounded.

Sampson v. Orkin Exterminating Co.

124 F.R.D. 631 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 1989

The plaintiffs introduced evidence that Wanda was suffering from chlordane poisoning, that the poisoning affected her immune system, and that the damage to her immune system may lead to cancer. … First, Orkin has failed to establish that either Mr. Wickland or Mr. Block agreed to accept personal responsibility for the expert witness fees.

Finnegan v. Tetzloff

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 9, 2025

However, this is clearly not the case as Indiana law empowers trial courts to initiate contempt proceedings, to make contempt findings, and to issue punishment. Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5; Knowles v. … Finnegan asserts a claim against Jennifer Tetzloff, who he alleges is a court administrator who served as the court reporter at the contempt proceeding but was not qualified to do so.

United States v. Allen

207 F. Supp. 2d 856 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 2002

AT & T Technologies, 831 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1993), the court set forth the considerations governing a motion in limine as follows: This court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible … At the evidentiary hearing, the Government offered the testimony of two witnesses to establish the scientific reliability of shoe print impression evidence in general.