Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,515 results
0.93s
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 8, 2026
immunity will often apply to claims for damages. … However, because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, this question is best left to a later stage of the litigation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown577 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 1984
The plain meaning of § (A)(i) conclusively establishes Congress’ intent. … Congress clearly intended an offset for most Social Security pension payments and the Secretary’s interpretation to that effect (and Indiana’s conforming interpretation of § (A)(i)) is therefore valid and correct.
Cited 14 timesPublishedKarczewski v. Ford Motor Company
382 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 1974
The burden established in Becker v. Coca Cola Bottling Works, 132 Ind.App. 390 , 177 N.E.2d 759 (1961), was clearly met. … It is without substantial dispute that the defendant qualifies as a seller and that the plaintiff qualifies as a buyer in this case.
Cited 10 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 13, 2022
Macomb, supra, at *64 (“whether [the school] responded in a way that was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances—is for a jury to decide”). … capacity (Rollock (Count VII), and Sermersheim (Count VIII)) based on a lack of equal protection or due process offense, and qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown211 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 1962
In 1930 the Treasury’s established interpretation of the statute was reversed by the Supreme Court’s decision in May v. Heiner, supra. … They demonstrate clearly the intention on the part of the members of the Senate to associate May v. Heiner with irrevocable transfers only.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2025
court 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 … Bates-Smith has not identified any document that qualifies as legal mail. Prisoners are also entitled to meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJacobson v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company
163 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 19, 1958
The Hintz case, brought in the Eastern District of New York, involved a New York corporate defendant whose principal place of business, as established by the affidavit of its vice president, was located in the Southern District … There is no reason why a different rule on venue should apply to an Illinois Corporation which is qualified to do business any place in Illinois than to a foreign corporation which is licensed to do business in Illinois.
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2023
The dispute here does not center around whether McInnis qualifies as a disabled veteran. It seems apparent from the filings that he earned that status, and therefore lived at Veterans Village. … is also available to the subordinate.”) 4 The City’s motion argues that McInnis “has not met his burden to establish standing.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 7, 2022
court 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 … Appx. 353, 355 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Bridges and finding qualified immunity applied to shield the defendant because it had not been clearly established “that a threat to file a grievance was protected”); Cobian v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFederal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Cobb
738 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 1, 1990
This court also notes that FNMA failed to discover precedent which was established in this circuit as early as 1943. See, Blank v. Bitker, supra. … Under Indiana law, even if at a prior time a mortgagee’s agent clearly reflected the mortgagee’s desire to accelerate the mortgage note in a letter or note to the mortgagor, an invitation to tender the amount due in order
Cited 9 timesPublished60 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 1999
Under the AEDPA, this court can only grant relief on this issue if it finds that the decision of the state court was an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the … The question is thus whether the Supreme Court of Indiana’s decision on the evidentiary question was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In Chambers v.
Cited 11 timesPublished195 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 1961
In 1930 the Treasury’s established interpretation of the statute was reversed by the Supreme Court’s decision in May v. Heiner, supra. … They demonstrate clearly the intention on the part of the members of the Senate to associate May v. Heiner with irrevocable transfers only.
Modified by Studebaker v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 263 (1962)Cited 13 timesPublished936 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1996
The text of Gaudin clearly indicates that it is based specifically on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. — U.S. at-, -, 115 S.Ct. at 2313-14, 2318-20 . Lower courts have viewed Gaudin as a constitutional decision. … See Jones, 76 F.3d at 854 (noting that although the basic right to counsel might have qualified for the second exception not all subsequent refinements of the right would do so).
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2026
As the party asserting attorney-client privilege, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing all of its essential elements. … Thus, “[m]aterials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by' the doctrine
Cited 0 timesUnknownZaky v. United States Veterans Administration
605 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 1985
As a result, plaintiff fails to establish a cause of action based on the fifth amendment. This court agrees with Dr. … Questions by any members of the board should be clearly stated and should have a direct bearing on the purpose of the review.
Cited 3 timesPublished925 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 16, 1995
Clearly, Defendants have a subrogation interest in “covered expenses.” … After all, while the Seventh Circuit has not clearly indicated its position on the make whole doctrine, it has at least contemplated the merits of adopting the make whole doctrine.
Cited 15 timesPublishedLopez - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO FILINGS v. Trump
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 2025
According to Lopez, “[t]he negligence of leadership and the thought of immunity compromised the American people and citizens of the nation.” Id. at 2. … He claims President Trump’s “agenda is clearly monetary, and the effects of Covid cost the American people trillions of dollars of debt.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2020
court 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 … To establish a violation of the right to access the courts, an inmate must show that unjustified acts or conditions (by defendants acting under color of law) hindered the inmate’s efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal
Cited 0 timesUnknown934 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 7, 1996
The Court will also defer examining the issues of town policy, punitive damages and qualified immunity because the underlying claim affects the determination of those issues. … Indiana Code 36-8-3-4(m), in establishing the duration of the term of the police chief office, does not conflict with the four-year limitation imposed by the Constitution.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna