Case law

Kohn v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

966 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 1997

FELA, by its very terms, applies only to claims brought by employees of a railroad that qualifies as a common carrier under the Act. … The record clearly establishes that Kohn was merely a truck driver who was fatally injured in an accident with a N&W train.

DeCalonne v. G.I. Consultants, Inc.

197 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 2002

DeCalonne was clearly employed pursuant to an employment contract. … Clearly, DeCalonne would have knowledge of whether Exhibit 14 was actually the letter he received from Hea-ton & Eadie.

Davidson v. Vanderpool

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 2022

IFP Status Because it appears that Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without the pre-payment of filing fees, his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. … When screening an IFP complaint, “a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the alleged facts are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional

Cordova v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac

936 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2013

In focusing on the claimant’s argument that her disabilities affected her ability to perform manual tasks, 4 the .Court *1009 concluded that “[t]he word ‘substantial’ ... clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only … a' minor way with the performance of manual tasks from qualifying disabilities” and that major life activities refer only to “those activities that are of central importance to daily life.”

Davis v. Carrington

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 14, 2024

It is well established that the Entireties Exemption in Indiana prevents a judgment against one spouse from affixing as a lien to property held as tenants by entirety. … While Warsco is not squarely on point, and I think I would have to hesitate as qualifying it as controlling authority issued after Judge Brady’s opinion, it does give additional credence to my resounding feeling that Judge

John Roberts Manufacturing Co. v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac

152 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 1957

The determinative facts established by the undisputed evidence are that the plaintiff is a Delaware Corporation, with its factory and principal office in Norman, Oklahoma, and the defendant is an Indiana corporation, having … in bas-relief thereon, and has sold it in competition with the defendant to all students of Notre Dame in violation of the rule of the defendant of restricting sales to juniors, seniors and alumni only, and the evidence clearly

Robertson - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT ONLY CERTAIN FILINGS v. Smiley

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 19, 2019

. § 1915A because the amended complaint sought money damages against a defendant who was immune from such relief; and (3) Robertson v. Sevier, 3:18CV637 (N.D. … Robertson’s feelings of distress do not qualify as a basis for circumventing the Three Strikes Rule. Finally, Robertson complains about his vision.

Elkins

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 30, 2026

Based on this information, Elkins financially qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. … Should Elkins file an amended complaint in this matter, the complaint must clearly explain the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, as well as the timeframe, facts, and legal basis for his claims; that is the who, what,

Paeplow v. Foley

128 B.R. 429 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 7, 1991

This rule makes it clear that the court’s review of the bankruptcy judge’s findings of fact is to be under the clearly erroneous standard. … Generally, they challenge the bankruptcy court’s application of well-established bankruptcy case law and posit the uniqueness of Indiana law on tenancy by entireties applicable to this case.

Holdeman v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

649 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 1986

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), the aforesaid elements of consent are clearly present here. This record leads solely to that conclusion. Finally Mr. … immunity.

Pender v. United States

866 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 1994

Therefore, the statement would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule. Because both *1135 the first and second statements constitute admissible evidence, they will be considered. … In order to prevail, Consolidated must demonstrate that the “public or livery conveyance” exclusion clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage under the present facts. Allstate Ins. Co. v.

McCormick v. Goebel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 2020

Defendants invoking quasi-judicial immunity bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to it. Schneider, 366 F. App’x at 686. … Thus, like qualified immunity, it will often be premature to resolve that defense at the pleading stage. Id.; Williams v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., No. 2:17-cv-164, 2019 WL 3003906, at *3 (N.D. Ind.

Franklin v. Duckworth

530 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 1982

The essential elements for a tacit admission were clearly established in this ease. The petitioner was present when Mo-ten accused him of shooting a man in the course of a robbery. Petitioner’s only reply was to laugh. … Secondly, these statements were voluntarily given under no threat of prosecution or grant of immunity.

Anderson v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 2022

Anderson’s information establishes that she is financially qualified to file without payment of the fee, but her complaint does not pass muster when subjected to the associated review of its merits. … (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

Local 186, International Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

304 F. Supp. 1284 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 2, 1969

Moreover, the Commission in its decision clearly stated that Donna Perry was contending that she was denied the sought-after position on the basis of the union contract. … As such, it clearly has standing to bring such an action. International Chemical Workers Union v. Planters Mfg. Co., 259 F.Supp. 365 (N.D.Miss.1966).

United States v. Cleavenger

325 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 1971

Crumpacker ever qualified as executor. Mr. Crumpacker is not a party to this law suit, but is one of the attorneys representing the defend *877 ants. Thomas H. … Cleavenger is the duly qualified administrator of the estate, and thus stands in the place of the executor.

Mapes v. IBJ Media Holdings LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2025

The motion establishes that Mr. Mapes is unable to prepay the filing fee. … The ADA specifically includes an exhaustive list of private entities that qualify as public accommodations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181.

GTE North Inc. v. McCarty

978 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 5, 1997

Clearly, the Act does not contemplate that. … As discussed herein, the answer is clearly no.

Doe

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 15, 2025

In particular, in that opinion and order, the Court recognized the City’s “immunity for discretionary training, supervision, and retention of police officers” and immunity for any of Plaintiff’s allegations against the … and telephone number of each witness who will testify regarding the denial or qualified response.”

McCarty v. Purdue University The Trustees of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2021

Because she has failed to establish that any exception to Purdue’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment applies, Ms. McCarty’s FLSA claim against Purdue must fail. … Under the FLSA, an individual qualifies as an “employer” if she “had supervisory authority over the complaining employee and was responsible in whole or part for the alleged violation.” Riordan v.