Case law

JERLES v. STALLARD & ASSOCIATES, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 10, 2020

The Court need not address in depth whether any dispute of material fact exists because Stallard has not met its burden of demonstrating it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3 Because Stallard does not clearly … Stallard also argues that "the hiring of Barker," who was more qualified than Jerles, eliminated Stallard's need for an accounting employee.

Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence

165 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 29, 2016

The State’s conduct clearly discriminates against Syrian refugees based on their national origin. … The State’s conduct clearly constitutes national origin discrimination.

BURCH

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2025

Dist., 604 F.3d 490, 494, 502 (7th Cir. 2010) (an employee being given the choice to resign or be fired qualifies as constructive discharge). … Burch cannot establish constructive discharge without adequately pleading such conditions. See id. at 534–36.

Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Studer

555 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 14, 2008

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Thus, Douglas is clearly distinguishable and does not affect our analysis here.

United States v. $299,745.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 3, 2025

Accepting, for present purposes, that either iteration qualifies as a pure question of law, see In re Text Messaging Antitr. Litig., 630 F.3d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 2010), Mr. … Garcia contends that he "is not seeking [an] interlocutory appeal on a well-set- tled or clearly established question of law" (though he offers no further, meaningful elab- oration). Dkt. 18 at 6; e.g., dkt. 21 at 3.

Little Arm Inc. v. Adams

13 F. Supp. 3d 893 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2014

Due Process The void for vagueness doctrine stems from “the basic due process principle that a law is unconstitutional if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Hegwood v. … Though the court does not question this well-established principle, it is not applicable here.

COYLE NISSAN, LLC v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2020

Because NNA has not informed Coyle how a dealership qualifies for this incentive program, Coyle is not aware of any established criteria to qualify for the selective incentives. … Thus, Coyle has not qualified to receive the selective incentives. However, other similarly situated dealerships have qualified for and participated in the incentive program.

BRUCE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 22, 2023

The court finds Bruce has established that Yellow Cab and Shields acted as Norfolk Southern's agents under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, but he has not established they were agents of PTI under Indiana's agency … Because Norfolk Southern clearly appointed PTI as its agent and permitted PTI to appoint a "duly-approved subcontractor" to perform the services PTI 3 Norfolk Southern's control over Yellow Cab is barely discussed in

BLACKLEDGE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2024

In sum, the Plan clearly and explicitly requires plan participants to submit the ap- propriate claim forms to the Plan Administrator before taking any other action, including bringing a lawsuit in federal court, dkt. 51- … Plaintiffs' sole argument is that, "[b]ased on the UPS Defendants' own assertions and argument in their summary judgment brief, had Plaintiffs pursued those internal remedies, they clearly would not have been successful

MCCRAY v. DETAMORE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2021

screening order, our court must dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if it is determined to be legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … We nonetheless provided Plaintiff an opportunity to draft and file an amended complaint that set out his claims more clearly and thus satisfied Rule 8. C.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY CHAPTER OF TURNING POINT USA v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2022

The only mention of the Indiana Constitution is with regard to Plaintiffs' privileges and immunities claim. Accordingly, we limit our discussion of Plaintiffs' free speech claim to the First Amendment. … Despite the City's clearly expressed intent to encourage members of the general public to develop art to be displayed in City rights-of-way, including in "transportation corridors" and "roundabouts and intersections," without

CALLAHAN, DOUGLAS, PEACHER, WELLS v. MILLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2021

In addition, section 1983 allows for recovery only by a "party injured" by a "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Armstrong v. … Daily, 786 F.3d 529, 553 (7th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff must "establish one of the necessary elements of a constitutional tort: that the officer's act . . . caused any injury.") (internal quotation omitted).

TURNER v. HAMILTON COUNTY TRUSTEE ASSOCIATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2023

He argues the trial court "submitted a number of clearly and plainly unjust and unlawful orders against me. Most recently, it affirmed the dismissal of the previous court. … Turner … cites no authority (and we are aware of none) establishing a tort claim for the wrongful denial of benefits. We need not decide this issue, however.

SHELTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 21, 2025

Shelton’s prior qualifying convictions are for drug related offenses and he has not sustained a conviction for a crime of violence." Id. at 26. … Shelton argues that a conspiracy conviction, even for a conspiracy to sell drugs, is not a qualifying "controlled substance offense."

TEDROW v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2022

The ITCA also grants tort immunity to employees of the state’s political subdivisions, unless the employee acts criminally, clearly outside the scope of employment, maliciously, willfully and wantonly, or in a manner calculated … Morris are immune because Mr. Tedrow doesn’t allege any exceptions to employee immunity in the EEOC charges or in his complaint. Mr. Tedrow doesn’t refute the defendants’ arguments.

HINEITI v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 2021

Hineiti alleged that after he filed the September 2019 Charge, Lilly "continued to hire less qualified American and/or significantly younger individuals to positions to which it had not permitted [Mr. … Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has recognized that an employee's protected activity "does not immunize [him] from being subsequently disciplined or terminated for inappropriate workplace behavior." Kidwell v.

ANDRES v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2025

The Seventh Circuit also requires a showing of "as- certainability," meaning "that [the] class be defined . . . clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins v. … Ascertainability An ascertainable class is "defined clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins, 795 F.3d at 659.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Crabtree

485 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2006

Bang”), established that vitamin K was critical to expressing significant amounts of protein C. Crabtree Dep. at 414, 487. … Plutzky, must establish his co-inventorship by clear and convincing evidence. See id.

MARTIN v. COLONIAL COIN LAUNDRY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 2022

"A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: '(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment … The dismissal order also noted that any amended complaint must address whether Plaintiff has a qualifying disability and whether his dog is necessary under the ADA. Id.

Lee v. Walro (In re Lee)

567 B.R. 802 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2017

Accordingly, it is well established that the choice between the two remedies is left to the bankruptcy court’s discretion. Hebenstreit, 619 Fed.Appx. at 531 ; Veluchamy, 535 B.R. at 800 . … “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. at 574 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 .