Case law

Church of the American Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. City of Gary

219 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2002

Finally, the dissenters chide the majority’s order of dismissal as “clearly dis-serving] the public interest.” … Pap’s subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because Pap’s had sold the real property upon which the establishment was located, indeed the establishment now housed a comedy club.

Lafayette Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

545 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 1982

Bernard Crimmons must be active in the new company or someone highly qualified who An-heuser-Busch would approve. 62. … Designation of areas of primary responsibility have clearly been upheld under Section 1 of the Sher *1147 man Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 . Continental T. V., Inc. v.

Medical Assurance Co. v. Weinberger

973 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2013

Weinberger established various legal entities through which he practiced, including Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C. … The Medical Malpractice Act establishes a comprehensive scheme addressing medical malpractice actions.

Orr v. Sevier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2019

Orr asserts that Warden Sevier “blindly relied upon inaccurate and false medical records that were clearly harming Orr.” (ECF 1 at 5.) … “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

Rogers v. Ford Motor Co.

952 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 1997

AlliedSignal and Ford move for summary judgment on the grounds that (a) the plaintiffs’ sole design defect expert is not qualified to testify under Daubert v. … Myers clearly lend themselves to testing and substantiation through the scientific method.

Insurance Corp. of America v. Dillon, Hardamon & Cohen

725 F. Supp. 1478 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 1989

Since they lacked absolute knowledge of the other errors, they qualified their demand in the June 8 letter. … Clearly, neither Hoyt nor Bensalem covers the situation before this court.

Reyes

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2026

The court overruled this objection, noting “physical force” means “force capable of causing physical pain or injury,” and that the categorical approach established that aggravated battery causing great bodily harm qualified … n.11(A) (providing “clearly improbable” standard).

Bonzani v. Goshen Health System Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 11, 2020

Bonzani’s employment agreement, established the MEC’s authority to investigate. Id. ¶ 4(g). Dr. … Similarly, the hospital is not entitled to immunity now under the Indiana Peer Review Privilege.

McCullough v. Holy Cross College

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 18, 2020

Summary judgment is proper if the nonmoving party doesn’t establish the existence of an essential element on which that party bears the burden of proof at trial. Massey v. … Watts’s remaining arguments regarding sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.

Shidler v. Moore

446 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 2006

the 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 … They anticipated that courts would apply the Act’s standard with due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order,

Fort Wayne Women's Health v. Board of Commissioners

735 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 2010

Because the case law is so developed on this question, no government official would be entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit if he or she conducted such an unconsented search. See Doe v. … Klopfer replies that the Indiana statute doesn’t clearly define patient records as confidential.

Bushouse v. Local Union 2209, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

164 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 2, 2001

Accordingly, Bus-house qualified for the Charity Option and has been provided that option since April 2001. … At least one court has concluded that the requirement under § 19 that an individual have church membership to qualify for the charity option is unconstitutional. See Wilson v.

Martin v. Noble County Sheriff's Dept

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 4, 2021

Harp, Hutsell and Dunafin argue that they “are entitled to summary judgment due to lack of personal involvement and/or are entitled to qualified immunity.” County Defendants’ Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 139), p. 5. … Dec. 4, 2019) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc. v. Sebelius

988 F. Supp. 2d 958 · 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 … coverage for employees (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

Fye v. Smiley

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 7, 2025

Based on the proceedings to date, the court does not find it likely that requiring Fye to replead again will result in a pleading that more clearly sets forth his claims. … Fye satisfies the first prong because filing a grievance or internal complaint about a non-frivolous matter qualifies as protected activity for purposes of a First Amendment claim.4 Holleman v.

Fall v. Indiana University Board of Trustees

12 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1998

Actionable Hostile Environment “It is well established that ‘a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.’” Gleason v. … We note that the University's brief in support of its motion for summaiy judgment qualifies Cohen’s touching of the Plaintiff’s breasts by parenthetically noting that Cohen’s groping occurred over, rather than under, the

Jones v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2024

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional requirements. Ctr. for Dermatology and Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. … “The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing its conduct comes within the Act.” King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 480 (Ind. 2003), reh’g denied. Ms.

Coleman v. Keebler Co.

997 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 1998

O’Boisie also contends that the Plaintiff was never a qualified individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, could perform the essential functions of the packer’s job, and, at the very least … Clearly Keebler can afford to satisfy any judgment the Plaintiff may secure in this case. 9 Finally, the continuity factor weighs in favor of O’Boisie.

Medical Assurance Co. v. Weinberger

295 F.R.D. 176 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 2013

To meet the qualified immunity from discovery based on Rule 26(b)(3), the materials sought must be: “(1) documents and tangible things; (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; and (3) by or for a party or … Materials or investigative reports developed in the ordinary course of business do not qualify as work product.

Matlock v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 14, 2020

The face of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. First, it speaks in terms of the parties’ respective “residences.” … All of these reasons combined, lead to the inevitable conclusion that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction.