Case law

QUALITY LEASING CO INC Inc v. INTERNATIONAL METALS LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 2021

To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, "a plaintiff must establish that a measurable benefit has been conferred on the defendant under such circumstances that the defendant's retention of the benefit without payment … This amount of capital is clearly insufficient for a corporation engaging in the type of transactions conducted by Valley Forge.

WALTON v. UPROVA CREDIT LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2024

However, Uprova Credit did stipulate "a limited waiver of its sovereign immunity only as set forth" in the agreement to arbitrate contained therein. … He alleges further that Defendants are not bona fide "arms of the Tribe," meaning they are not entitled to the protections of tribal sovereign immunity. Id. ¶ 39, 43. Mr.

GREER v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 6, 2024

"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 … Greer must establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability by demonstrating that he has "a (1) physical impairment (2) that substantially limited (3) one or more major life activities."

BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP. v. PALMER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2019

“[I]f a covenant is clearly separated into parts, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not, the covenant may be divided according to the blue-pencil doctrine.” Clark's Sales & Serv., Inc. v. … Palmer qualify as trade secrets or confidential information.

Neurological Resources, P.C. v. Anthem Insurance

61 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 17, 1999

Firestone clearly held that benefit denial decisions are subject to de novo review unless there are contrary provisions in the plan. … This provision merely establishes that the company must make a determination as to eligibility.

WILLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2026

A claim is considered technically exhausted by procedural default if it was not raised in the state court and is now clearly procedurally barred under state law. See Woodford v. … Because Willis cannot establish that he lacks the ability to raise his claims in state post-conviction proceedings, he cannot establish this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the claims in the amended

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation

190 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2002

BF Goodrich-Icollan-tas, a case brought in Colombia,] it became necessary to dispense with expert testimony because there was no one in the country, other than parts technicians, qualified to discuss the quality, specifications … This factor is not as clearly in Defendants’ favor as it might appear to be at first blush. Ford and Firestone do not argue that foreign law applies to all issues in the cases.

Wade v. Wellpoint, Inc.

892 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2012

To qualify as “unusual” or “suspicious,” the alleged insider trading must be “dramatically out of line with prior trading practices at times calculated to maximize the personal benefit from undisclosed inside information. … Without more, we are not equipped to make a finding that this agreement clearly constituted any admission of wrongdoing by Defendants. .

CONATSER v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 31, 2022

The only evidence pointed to by Claimant demonstrates that he had a limp and decreased strength and range of motion; that evidence is clearly insufficient to demonstrate that Claimant had an 'inability to ambulate effectively … Plaintiff contends that the ALJ relied heavily on Plaintiff's activities of daily living and ignored the qualified way Plaintiff completed most of these activities.

A.M. v. INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2022

It is "'an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.'" Cassell v. … Establishing a likelihood of irreparable harm "requires more than a mere possibility of harm.

BELL v. ARDAGH GROUP S.A.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2021

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … Sending notice to Bell's address on file was clearly "reasonably calculated" to reach her.

BRAXTON III v. INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2024

Braxton did not "clearly assert a claim in a Statement of Claims," resulting in "abandonment of that claim." [Filing No. 43 at 4.] Even if the claim were preserved, the School argues, Mr. … Braxton "cannot establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability, nor that [the School] was aware of his disability," or that the School "failed to reasonably accommodate him." [Filing No. 43 at 4-5.]

Indiana Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Schweiker

544 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 12, 1982

Congress also established the PRRB in 1973. The Board has the authority to review many intermediary hearing decisions. 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo. … This is contrary to the mandate in Section 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Act and the Board’s finding in this regard is clearly erroneous.

PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc.

831 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 1992

Schwartz’s analysis of the three offers was comparative: In my opinion, all-three offers received by PSI would qualify as “competitive offers” under Section 7.03 of the Agreement. … The evidence presented establishes that any given coal supplier occupies a unique market position.

PARRY v. STANDARD FUSEE CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 13, 2021

Standard Fusee contends that the "undisputed facts clearly establish that [Parry's] misuse of the flare launcher was the cause of her injury, and that such misuse was not reasonably expected by Orion." … Parry clearly admits to understanding the instructions on the packaging of the product and admits that she knew it was for marine use.

UJUNWA v. RESCARE, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2019

As her pregnancy progressed, it affected her ability to walk, lift, bend, and stand, and her pregnancy sometimes affected her ability to concentrate or think clearly (Filing No. 31-2 at 6, 10, 22; Filing No. 31-4). … ResCare argues that Adirieje cannot establish a disability, so “neither [her] discrimination claim nor [her] failure to accommodate claim can proceed, as this is the first element of both claims.” Cassimy v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Preferred Management Corp.

216 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2002

For reasons clearly addressed by the district court in EEOC v. … Three sorts of actions qualify to establish liability in the parent: (1) actions that would traditionally permit a court to pierce the corporate veil; (2) action “for the express purpose of avoiding liability under the discrimination

GREENBANK v. GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2021

We thus treat those facts as established for purpose of this order. … What is missing from this theory is any evidence establishing deceptive behavior or misleading communications from Great American regarding the short-term renewal. Great American clearly communicated to Ms.

EAKIN v. COOK MEDICAL LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 28, 2025

Defendant is a medical device production and sales company.6 Defendant was established as an Indiana company in 2003, and has its global headquarters in Bloomington, Indiana.7 Defendant is licensed to and conducts business … Roger”), even though she was more qualified.17 Plaintiff also alleges that Lauren Perry (“Ms. Perry”) covered up Defendant’s employees’ sexual harassment by deleting complaints made against Mr.

Allard v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc.

1 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 1998

Such evidence must clearly demonstrate the motivation of the person who made the contested *921 employment decision. Id. (citing Cheek v. Peabody Coal Co., 97 F.3d 200, 203 (7th Cir.1996)). … A discharged employee who claims discrimination may not avoid summary judgment by asserting that she was qualified for her position. See Collier, 66 F.3d at 893 .