Case law

Hohenegger v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

967 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 10, 1997

Rather, only “critical acts” qualify. Coward v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 686 F.2d 1230, 1233-34 (7th Cir.1982). … The Seventh Circuit seems to have endorsed the definition of “critical acts” as “those significant facts which give rise to a claim but which fall short of establishing a cause of action.”

United States v. Nunn

435 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 1977

. *296 Moreover, it clearly was entirely proper for this Court to postpone sentencing until the other pending charge, Cause No. H Cr 74-51 was resolved. 1 In United States v. … The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.” Here there was no error whatsoever.

DeWalt v. Greencroft Goshen, Inc.

902 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2012

To qualify for the administrative exemption under the FLSA, an employee’s primary job duties must be exempt work. 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). Job title alone does not establish the exempt status of an employee. … All three of DeWalt’s inquiries clearly indicated DeWalt’s concern about misclassification.

Doe v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 13, 2022

Finally, Defendants assert that Roe’s individual §1983 claims also fail based on a lack of Due Process or Equal Protections violations and qualified immunity. … individual capacity (Rollock (Count VII), and Sermersheim (Count VIII)) based on a lack of equal protection or due process offense, and qualified immunity.

Peller v. Selective Service Local Board No. 65

313 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 1970

On August 21, plaintiff was advised by the Surgeon General that he had again been found medically qualified for induction. … Plaintiff contends that this case satisfies that test because the local board clearly violated Section 1625.3(b) of the Selective Service Regulations.

Bailey, III v. Jezierski

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 26, 2023

1093 (7th Cir. 1990) (explaining that because “the ‘under color of law’ category is broader than the ‘scope of employment category” an allegation that an employee was “acting under color of law” does not “automatically establish … Such a holding would clearly go against the text of § 34- 13-3-5(c).

Ellis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 2025

Murray (first name unknown), but does not clearly explain how, if at all, she was involved in these events. His allegations about “defendants” WL 25359, at *3 (S.D. Ill. … Ellis mentions the words “policy” and “practice” several times in his complaint but does not clearly allege what the policy or practice was that caused him injury.

Schaill Ex Rel. Kross v. Tippecanoe County School Corp.

679 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 1988

Bracy recommended establishment of pre- and post-measures of performance, and cross-checks with the performance of others. … In T.L.O., the Supreme Court clearly laid to rest the doctrine of in loco parentis as a theory of the school’s immunity from suit.

Ambers v. Tippecanoe County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2024

As the Indiana Court of Appeals has put it, “the Tort Claims Act contains an unequivocal affirmative statement that clearly evinces the legislature’s intention not to subject the State or local government to suit by persons … It is well established that ITCA immunity does not apply to claims of assault, battery, and excessive force. Wilson v. Isaacs, 929 N.E.2d 200, 204 (Ind. 2010). In Kemezy v.

Fields v. Rozzi

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2020

This claim is barred by qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Hall’s reading of the implied consent, nor does he show that Officer Hall violated a “clearly established” right of Mr. Fields’. The only thing Mr. Fields alleges is that Officer Hall read him his implied consent.

Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission

380 F. Supp. 630 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 1974

All members are scientists or engineers who are eminently qualified in various fields needed to conduct a nuclear safety review. … In the Federal Establishment, as in General Motors or any other hierarchical giant, there are enough incentives as it is for playing it safe and listing with the wind; Congress clearly did not propose to add to them the threat

Back v. Carter

933 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 30, 1996

The Lake County JNC was established in 1973 pursuant to Indiana Code section 33-5-29.5-1 et seq. … Defendant Bayh argues that the Court should dismiss the action against him because he is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

Patterson v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.

475 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 1979

Thus, it is clearly established by the various federal courts that punitive damages may not be awarded, e. g., Pearson v. Western Electric Co., 542 F.2d 1150, 1151-2 (10th Cir. 1976); EEOC v. … Only if there are no qualified bidders for the vacancy(ies), Youngstown may obtain new hires as mason apprentices. E.

Thompson v. Reagle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2025

still 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 … Additionally, a plaintiff can establish intentional discrimination through a showing of deliberate indifference. Lacy v. Cook Cty., Illinois, 897 F.3d 847, 863 (7th Cir. 2018).

United Beverage Co. of South Bend, Inc. v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission

566 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 21, 1983

In 1939 the state legislature discarded the existing quota system, along with geographic territories, and removed the Commission’s discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. (1939 Ind.Acts, Ch. 29, Sec. 2, p. … Clearly, if this section protects a wholesaler’s managerial decision regarding internal controls, it also protects the wholesaler’s business judgment as to who his customers will be.

Adams v. Indiana

622 F. Supp. 1478 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 27, 1985

The Act clearly prohibits this court from issuing an injunction in this case if a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” exists in the Indiana courts. Rosewell v. … The first is that in order for Parratt to apply, the loss of property must be occasioned by a random, unauthorized act of a state employee, and not by conduct pursuant to established state procedure. Logan v.

Simons

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2026

This would mean she financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. But that is of no moment here because reviewing Simons’s allegations liberally, her complaint must be dismissed. … And nothing in the complaint establishes that any of the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.

Alexander

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2026

This would mean he financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. But that is of no moment here because reviewing Alexander’s allegations liberally, his complaint must be dismissed. … And nothing in the complaint establishes that either Hill-Kearse or Jimenez are subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.

Rosenthal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 2026

This would mean she financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. But that is of no moment here because reviewing Clark’s allegations liberally as the Court must do, her complaint must be dismissed. … And nothing in the complaint establishes who any of the Defendants are, or how they would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.

Bennett v. Antinnucci

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

Moreover, when a plaintiff brings an action for money damages against a federal official in his individual capacity, the official may be entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Although the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Crane violated Bennett’s Fourth Amendment rights, the question remains as to whether Crane is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity.