Case law

Garman v. United States Postal Service

509 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 1981

Plaintiff has been given ninety (90) days from February 25, 1981 in which to qualify on the “scheme.” How long it takes plaintiff to pass depends on how fast plaintiff can learn the scheme. … The infringement of plaintiff’s alleged religious First Amendment rights is clearly justified by the compelling interests of the Postal Service and the public.

Methodist Hosp. v. IND. FAMILY & SOCIAL SERVICES

860 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 1994

To qualify for federal funds, a state must submit a plan for medical assistance to the Secretary of HHS which complies with the requirements outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a). … Clearly, Medicaid recipients are the intended beneficiaries of this section, and the section does not provide a right enforceable to Medicaid providers, such as Plaintiffs in this action.

Bell v. Trustees of Purdue University

761 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 2, 1991

not clearly foreshadowed. … Plaintiffs urge this court to recognize that “Betts clearly established a new principle of law by transforming what had been an affirmative defense into an element of an employee’s prima facie case.” Mitchell v.

Methodist Hospital v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

860 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 8, 1994

To qualify for federal funds, a state must submit a plan for medical assistance to the Secretary of HHS which complies with the requirements outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a). … Clearly, Medicaid recipients are the intended beneficiaries of this section, and the section does not provide a right enforceable to Medicaid providers, such as Plaintiffs in this action.

Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson & Ethicon, Inc.

334 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 8, 2018

Absent controlling precedent extending PLIVA and Bartlett beyond the confines of generic drug labeling, I cannot find that medical device manufacturers like Ethicon are immune from state tort liability simply because their … Specifically, Ethicon claims that it was prejudicial error to exclude its proposed qualifier "not commonly known" in Instruction 20 as to Mrs.

Doe v. Barber

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

“A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the … 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

Local 309, United Furniture Workers of America v. Gates

75 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1948

C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 , at page 514, 59 S.Ct. 954 , at page 83 L.Ed. 1423 , the Supreme Court held Lhat only natural persons are entitled to the privileges and immunities of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and that only … It is clearly established by the evidence that the presence of the state police officers has prevented the Union members from discussing freely the matters they wish to take up.

Hall v. Superintendent

834 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 29, 2011

whether a legal principle had been clearly established”); Holland v. … Alternatively, Hall argues that the state court ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

Jones

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 7, 2026

Coffey went to trial, then the judge set aside the verdict on qualified immunity grounds, the Court of Appeals reversed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari remanding the case for reconsideration, and then the Seventh Circuit … held the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for liability.

Roloff v. Sullivan

772 F. Supp. 1083 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1991

The plaintiffs contend that Indiana’s Medicaid criteria on January 1, 1972 allowed for the following: Applicants or recipients who did not have resources below that required to qualify for benefits could establish their eligibility … Clearly, Indiana could adopt eligibility policies different from those currently utilized by the IDPW.

Keitz v. Lever Bros. Co.

563 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 1983

He elected to retire effective April 28, 1980, but the last day he worked was April 1,1980 in order to qualify for additional vacation benefits. In early October 1980, plaintiff contacted Mr. … The record clearly reveals that the ADEA notice was posted in a glass enclosed bulletin board that was reserved for permanent and government notices.

Abed v. Rios

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2022

The Plaintiff’s motion establishes that he is unable to prepay the filing fee. … Code § 34-9-3-4.2 Because the Court finds the Plaintiff’s asserted facts clearly indicate he is not currently the decedent’s estate’s personal representative, it denies many of his claims.

Gregory v. Zimmerman

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2023

Only two of them need to be addressed to establish that I must deny Gregory’s motion, albeit without prejudice to his pursuing indemnification in a state court proceeding. … Otherwise, the State would forfeit its Eleventh Amendment immunity every time the Attorney General defends a state employee in federal court, which is clearly not the case.

Hummel v. St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners

57 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2014

To succeed on the merits of a claim under Title II, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that [she] has a qualifying disability; (2) that [she] is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for which the public … Wright must establish “(1) that [she] has a qualifying disability; (2) that [she] is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for which the public entity is responsible, or is otherwise discriminated

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Bower

752 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2010

If the pleadings disclose that a claim is clearly excluded under the policy, no defense is required. Id. I. … The Policies clearly provide that they do not cover “punitive or exemplary damages.” (Policies, p. 12).

Smith v. US Department of Ed

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 27, 2019

It concluded that Plaintiff did not qualify for a loan discharge: After a thorough review of your application, the U.S. … It is a fundamental tenant of jurisprudence that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit absent a waiver of that immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).

Dean Foods Co. v. United Steel Workers of America

911 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1995

The arbitrator conditioned the grievant’s reinstatement on his ability to establish that he was medically fit to resume his former job or a substantially equivalent position. … exceeded his powers by (1) improperly placing the burden of discovering the grievant’s medical condition on the Company; (2) focusing on the phrases “full compensation” and “for time lost” to the exclusion of all other qualifying

Fields v. Candell

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 2020

immunity if a reasonable officer would have believed that the execution of the warrant did not violate any clearly established law. … Caudell would be entitled to qualified immunity. 2In his deposition, Fields indicates that he does not know who damaged his fence, but he assumed that the police did.

Federal Trade Commission v. Think Achievement Corp.

144 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2000

Indeed, [a]n advertiser’s good faith does not immunize it from responsibility for its misrepresentations .... … FTC, 291 F.2d 838 , 840 (7th Cir.1961), cert, denied, 368 U.S. 952 , 82 S.Ct. 395 , 7 L.Ed.2d 386 (1962) (advertising of a “lifetime guarantee” on watches without clearly disclosing that a service charge was required for

Taylor

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 29, 2026

. § 1915A, I must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it 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 from such relief … At the pleading stage, she has plausibly alleged that she has mental illness that qualify as a serious medical need.