Case law

Collins

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 4, 2025

As such, Murphy is financially qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. … ” the Court must dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(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

Spann-El v. Ind State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2022

In plain terms, only “genuine emergencies” qualify as a basis for circumventing the three-strikes provision. Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). … Likewise, the State of Indiana has Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court. de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corr., 917 F.3d 546, 565 (7th Cir. 2019).

Kleven v. St. Joseph County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2022

More recently, the Indiana legislature enacted a law providing immunity for a political subdivision, and their employees from liability for establishing, developing, implementing, maintaining, operating, and providing 911 … The court held that it did, and the broad immunity of §34-13-3-3(a)(19) was precluded in cases where the plaintiff could establish willful or wanton misconduct. Id. at 1272.

Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Manufacturing Co.

572 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 1983

The question of the medical necessity for such surgery was clearly an issue before the Industrial Board of Indiana. … Wausau terminated Vantine’s disability benefits for the first time when a qualified physician, Dr. Heller, advised that Mr. Vantine could return to work.

Gross v. Max

906 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2012

It’s hard to see how the circumstances of this case qualify as particularly extraor *814 dinary or unusual. See, e.g., Janssen v. … Any 'deliberate, clear and unequivocal' statement, either written or oral, made in the course of judicial proceedings qualifies as a judicial admission.”); United States v.

Collins v. Hall

991 F. Supp. 1065 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 1997

While this purpose is clear, much is unclear: no clearly defined criteria determined whose names would appear on the list; there was no established length of time during which one’s name would remain on the list; no procedure … Ascertaining and applying Indiana law of defamation, along with its privileges, exceptions and immunities, to the facts before the court is hardly “within [the] ‘no brainer’ exception to the duty to relinquish federal jurisdiction

Hunt v. Reagle

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 11, 2023

Our cases have established that the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing consists of three elements. … The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements.

Cagle v. Flick

3 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 1998

Thus, a suit in which a *989 medical provider may claim recovery through subrogation does not qualify. … Clearly, the equities do not weigh in favor of the Flicks.

Jones v. Marthakis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2024

prisoner is not required to show that he was “literally ignored” to establish deliberate indifference. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441 (7th Cir. 2010). … State Lottery Comm’n of Ind., 546 F.3d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 2008) (observing that states and state agencies “are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment”).

Lockhart v. United States

961 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 17, 1997

As the Government admits in its motion, the FTCA represents a limited waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit permitting a district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over claims for money damages based … An exception to this rule, not applicable here, exists when the facts required to establish jurisdiction are coextensive with those necessary to prevail on the merits. Peckmann v.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co. v. Garcia

227 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 2017

.”); DE 23-12 (“The cause of the contamination is clearly the dry cleaning operations in which [the dry cleaners’ owners] engaged for many years ...”). … The nature of the claim, not the merit, establishes the insurer’s duty to defend. Trisler, 575 N.E.2d at 1023 . III.

Shropshire v. Duckworth

654 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 3, 1987

Lash, 682 F.2d 648 (7th Cir.1982), clearly ruled that the Warden of the Indiana State Prison was immune from damage claims in his official capacity under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. … The procedures here established meet the minimum requirements of due process as established in Hewitt v. Helms.

Grimes v. Smith

585 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 7, 1984

As to the effects of the conspiracy: lay and expert testimony established a reasonable probability that many people, enough to swing the election to Graddick, voted for John Grimes (whose name appeared before Douglas Grimes … And assisted by testimony of the plaintiffs’ well-qualified expert witness, Dr.

Bonzani v. Goshen Health System Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2022

Pleading Standards and Immunity. … for immunity under the HCQIA.

Schools v. Sebelius

988 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 2013

: annual well-woman visits; screening for gestational diabetes and breast-feeding support, supplies, and counseling; human papillomavirus screening; screening and counseling for sexually transmitted infections and human immune-deficiency … employees and students (to comply with their own religious tenants and to avoid the ACA’s fines for failing to meet coverage requirements), then they must either directly provide contraceptive services themselves (which are clearly

United States v. Conservation Chemical Co. of Illinois

733 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 6, 1989

Of course, failure to submit a plan at all by a mandatory deadline is clearly a violation. … Although some of the deficiencies listed are clearly de minimis {see e.g., # 25 “This subsection should be separate from the tank storage section or the section should be retitled.”), other deficiencies are just as clearly

Cochran v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 30, 2000

These regulations establish what constitutes an adequate warning device for projects installed with federal funds. … Whether the crossbuck installed at C.R. 400 N was the same crossbuck originally installed with federal funds in 1976 is immaterial because it clearly met the federal standard of adequacy established for that crossing by virtue

Walters v. Mnunchin

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 2021

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 … Though not required to do so by the Act, the IRS established an online portal for individuals who are not typically required to file federal income tax returns (e.g., because an individual’s income is less than $12,200

Cohen v. Orthalliance New Image, Inc.

252 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 24, 2003

The record before the court clearly indicates a dispute long fomenting between the parties. … See Fed.R.Civ.P. 57 advisory committee’s note to adoption (“The existence or non-existence of any right, duty, power, liability, privilege, disability, or immunity or of any fact upon which such legal relations may depend

Williams v. Norfolk S. Corp.

322 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2018

That statement lists Williams' version of the facts with appropriate citations to evidence but does not clearly identify which of Norfolk's facts, if any, he disagrees with. … In general, the presence of pedestrians does not qualify as a specific, individual hazard. Eubanks, 875 F.Supp.2d at 906 ; Beal, 2006 WL 2095239 at *3-4.