Case law

Glessner v. Baughman

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 17, 2024

Even if it does, he contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Baughman violated a clearly established right. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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.

Peck v. Nelson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2024

“To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must ‘clearly establish’ (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” … Peck has established neither. The court has already explained that Mr. Peck cannot sue Judge William J. Nelson because of judicial immunity. Polzin v.

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.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lake County Agricultural Society

521 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 1980

The defendants base this proposition on the theory that a “door-closing” statute is clearly a substantive rule under Hanna v. … The plaintiffs’ activities of proselytizing members to their belief, distributing religious material and solicitation of donations clearly constitutes First Amendment expression.

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).

Scott

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2026

Morris, the Indiana Supreme Court discussed both decisions and reaffirmed Foster, recognizing only a narrow exception for the termination of public employment in violation of clearly established free speech rights. 849 … Both applied the immunity; neither carved out an exception from it. Accordingly, the City’s motion is granted as to Count V.

Pollard v. Rea Magnet Wire Co., Inc.

674 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 24, 1986

As a body builder Pollard was particularly well qualified for some of the work he performed. … The evidence clearly showed that both Dame and Gomez had given patently false reasons for missing work.

Bickel v. Pfizer, Inc.

431 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 2006

Dykstra wondering if the Plaintiff had some immune complex disease or other form of vasculitis that was induced by the Lipitor and which “could perhaps have contributed to her ischemic optic neuropa *920 thy.” … relevant and reliable, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. v. United States

858 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1994

Clearly then, the parties understood that summary judgment would be the Court’s vehicle for deciding the case. … To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”

Black v. Dept of Child Sevices

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 26, 2021

Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 20), arguing that her most recent complaint establishes jurisdiction. … Had Plaintiff’s first amendment only removed the minor’s identifying information, it might not qualify as an amendment for the purposes of Rule 15(a). But see Rogers v.

Wright v. Mishawaka Housing Authority

225 F. Supp. 3d 752 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 1, 2016

“Second, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the employment practice and the statistical disparity....” Id. Ms. … That clearly could not be what Congress had in mind when it sought to create ‘truly integrated and balanced living patterns.’ ”).

Milosavljevic v. Brooks

55 F.R.D. 543 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 1972

In the passage quoted above, the court qualified its statement by a footnote: “Assuming the ‘long arm’ statutes do not apply.” … The court’s hearing has established that the information given Schmoll was wrong.

Virijevich v. Chesterton

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2025

Defendants argue that the record lacks evidence to demonstrate any element of the prima facie case, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. [DE 35]. A. … This finding is determinative, so the Court will not address arguments relating to the other elements or to qualified immunity.

United States v. Chiattello

599 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 4, 1985

The standard for permitting a pretrial or interlocutory appeal of a double jeopardy claim was established in Abney v. … The “likely to result in reversal” standard is clearly a much more stringent requirement with the burden now placed on a defendant.

Brown v. South Bend Clinic

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2025

Therefore, Brown has not established jurisdiction as required. Even if Brown had established jurisdiction, her complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. … As noted by Defendant, “an action against a qualified health care provider may not be commenced in an Indiana court before a Proposed Complaint has been presented to a medical review panel and the panel has rendered an

Ehlerding v. American Mattress & Upholstery, Inc.

208 F. Supp. 3d 944 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2016

Both working and lifting qualify as major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(A). … Here, by contrast, Plaintiff clearly alleges that his lifting capabilities were restricted following his return to work.

Young v. Schmucker

409 B.R. 477 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2008

If it does, then the bankruptcy court must be reversed, and the appellants must go forward with establishing the remaining elements. … buggy qualifies as a “vessel.”

Peck v. Nelson

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

Peck cannot proceed against Judge Nelson because judges are immune from suit. A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in absence of all jurisdiction. Polzin v. … Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (“To recover damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.”). Mr.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Electric Co.

17 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 1998

To proceed under the ADA, Smith must establish that he is an individual with a “disability” as defined by the Act. Smith’s burden of proving that he is a qualified individual with a disability is a “threshold matter.” … GE also points out that Smith’s per se argument is contrary to well-established law in this and other circuits. See Homeyer v.