Case law

Norman v. Northwest Indiana (Section 8)

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2021

Norman also alleged that “[t]his court allowed to [sic] white police officer to sexually assault this women and immune the evil parties without question.” (Am. Compl. 5, ECF No. 6). … The exact contours of her argument are unclear, but in any event, “the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government.” Hein v.

Hostetler v. Johnson Controls Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2020

Gilbert is an immunotoxicologist who addressed TCE’s effect on the immune system. And Dr. Spaeth is a medical doctor who addressed the effects of TCE, PCE, and asbestos. … In Kirk, the plaintiff developed a rare auto-immune disease after living in an area heavily contaminated with TCE. Dr.

Cox v. United States Gypsum Company

284 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1968

Any other rule would be clearly inconsistent with the language of the act. … They allege by affidavit, made on information and belief rather than personal knowledge, that male personnel were hired to perform jobs which they, the plaintiffs, were qualified to perform.

White v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 23, 2025

As White was told before, a violation of prison policy does not, by itself, establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Scott v. … He cannot ignore obvious mistreatment, but White provides no facts about his symptoms that would have alerted Warden Neal that his treatment was clearly inappropriate. See Snipes v.

Parise v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2021

However, Plaintiff actually stated in August 2018 that she was no longer working due to her immune deficiency, so her stress was greatly decreased. (AR 631.) … Clearly, however, Plaintiff did so here, in the form of voluminous testimony and abnormal medical findings.

Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp.

779 F. Supp. 1519 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 1991

Spills may be proven only if the residual exception established by Rule 803(24) applies. 2 Admissibility under the residual exception established by Rule 803(24) requires that “the statement must be sufficiently trustworthy … The court stated that, “The general rule is that expert medical opinion testimony is required to establish the content of reasonable disclosure unless the situation is clearly within the realm of laymen’s comprehension, as

Johnson v. United States

422 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 8, 1976

Thus, in Frontiero all service women had to establish their husband’s dependency before they could qualify for the additional benefits made available to all men without any such proof. … Although the language in these cases clearly supports the proposition that marriage is fundamental in nature, two distinctions are noteworthy.

Shake v. Payne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 29, 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 … This is so because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.” Fymbo v. State 1 It is unclear whether any of Shake’s items were lost.

Deida v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2023

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 … Deida has not identified any document that qualifies as legal mail. See Kaufman v.

Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. WCEDWARDS4 Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2025

The Underlying Amended Complaints will not be used to establish the truth of the facts alleged in the Underlying Lawsuits. … But such open-ended qualifiers do not define acts or omissions that can be construed as “clearly and unmistakably” within the scope of the Exclusion.

Dogan v. Astrue

751 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 2010

A five step test has been established to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Singleton v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir.1988); Bowen v. … The ALJ found that Bucholz, a registered nurse, does not qualify as an “acceptable medical source” in accordance with Section 416.913(a) and that only “acceptable medical sources” are qualified to give “medical opinions”

Cable v. Kuraray America, Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2023

. § 1915A, the court must review the 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 … limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee.’”

Johnson v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 12, 2024

To establish the performance prong of the Strickland test, Johnson must show that his attorney’s performance failed to meet an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. … Thus, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to raise an issue that is clearly authorized by statute. 1 The PSR reveals that Johnson has three prior robbery convictions,

Kras v. Dick's R U Crazy, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2020

[narcotics] training” was “amply qualified to testify as an expert”). … Kras argues that the DPE is ambiguous because it does not clearly express the coverage limitation, and that the language does not clearly and unambiguously preclude coverage for any injury that happens off-premises.

Johnson v. Hershberger

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 16, 2023

. § 1915A, the court must screen the complaint (ECF 1) 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 … Bend, 997 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir. 2021) (pointing to “a few sporadic examples of an improper behavior” is not enough to establish an official custom under Monell).

Felice v. Republic Airlines, Inc.

954 F. Supp. 2d 812 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 17, 2013

Felice was clearly in a position with the union requiring his personal participation in or review of pilot conduct reports and the resolution thereof. … First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case.

Mohamed v. Heeg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 25, 2025

. § 1915A, the court must screen the 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 … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Simmons v. Crossroads Bank

533 B.R. 895 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2015

A court “ ‘abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an incorrect legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have relied … ("To bar the Bank from bringing to the court's attention facts discovered [after the Rule 4004(a) deadline] would either give the debtor immunity for acts concealed or committed [after the Rule 4004(a) deadline], or require

Richards

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 4, 2026

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 … Richards clearly suffers from very serious medical conditions, but the Constitution does not mandate that he be restored to good health – something that seems unlikely given Richards’ condition.

Lorek v. Lorek

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2021

Lorek’s motion to dismiss and an opportunity for a hearing to establish that the dismissal be with prejudice due to Mr. Lorek’s persistent bad-faith conduct. … The Supreme Court found that “[t]he words ‘unless the debtor may be a debtor under such chapter’ expressly conditioned [the debtor’s] right to convert on his ability to qualify as a “debtor” under Chapter 13.” Id.