Case law

INDIANAPOLIS FRUIT COMPANY LLC v. GREEN BEAN DELIVERY, LLC

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

In order to assert a valid PACA trust claim against Defendants, Indy Fruit must establish that: "(1) it qualifies for protection under PACA as a produce supplier; (2) it provided the requisite notice of intent to preserve … Therefore, "the dissipation of PACA trust assets can render money damages inadequate, thereby necessitating equitable relief, especially when the dissipation will clearly result in the debtor's inability to make payment

Lauth v. Covance, Inc.

155 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 14, 2016

Because Lauth argues that Covance “applied its legitimate expectations in a disparate manner, the second and fourth prongs of [the prima facie test] merge, allowing the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by establishing … Lauth’s termination, however, clearly qualifies as an adverse employment action.

Indiana Insurance Companies v. Granite State Insurance

689 F. Supp. 1549 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 13, 1988

The purported exclusion is ineffective to defeat coverage in this instance because its language does not clearly and unmistakably define the scope of the exclusion. … In this case the damages were personal injury damages which typically do not fall within the established fixed and ascertainable standard.

TURNER v. HAMILTON COUNTY TRUSTEE ASSOCIATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2022

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … The CAA does give eligible parties private right of action denoted by its listing of criteria for eligibility which clearly and obviously, removes discretion from the hands of grantees."

KILBOURNE v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2020

Kilbourne more clearly defined in his response brief. [See Filing No. 62.] Mr. … Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has made clear that engaging in protected activity does not immunize an employee from being disciplined for his workplace behavior, and "where a 'significant intervening event separat

RAP INDY, LLC v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Ultimately, the Court clearly erred by misreading Paragraph III.G of the scheduling order, so it will grant reconsideration in part and undertake a de novo analysis of the bad-faith claim. … First, witnesses do not need to be employed as claims investigators in order to be insurance experts if they are otherwise qualified. See Med. Protective Co. of Fort Wayne Ind. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins.

WALSH v. HEAL AT HOME, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2025

Terrell was unaware of Defendants' rate adjustment practices prior to January 2023, that fact alone does not clearly and convincingly establish that Mr. … Patrick, Inc., 8 F.3d at 460 (stating that "a party can only be held in contempt for be- havior clearly prohibited by a court order within its four corners.") (citation modified).

TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2025

She also experiences a severe compulsion to self-harm, depression, suicidal ideations, and an inability to think clearly and make decisions. She has filed several lawsuits against prison officials in the past. … The Federal Rules of Evidence establish that a court may only "judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable 4 Cases which Ms.

DuRocher v. Riddell, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2015

Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief seeks an injunction requiring Defendants, among other things, to establish a medical monitoring program financed by a trust fund established to pay for medical monitoring of all past and … Duncan , however, is clearly distinguishable from this case. Plaintiff in Duncan brought a claim for negligence related to defendant’s policy that exposed employees to secondhand smoke. Id. at 603 .

VAN GORP v. LILLY USA, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2023

Oct. 6, 2010) ("The Seventh Circuit has clearly held that a party who fails to respond to points made … concedes those points."). … Co., 675 F.3d 709, 717 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The plaintiff must . . . establish causation by 'offer[ing] statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of

OLSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2025

Respondents argue that § 1225(b)(2) pertains to Petitioner because he is "seeking admission" and is an "applicant for admission" who is "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted." … See Castañon-Nava, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9 ("And while a noncitizen arrested in the Midwest might qualify as 'an alien present in the United States who had not been admitted,' § 1225(a)(1), the mandatory detention provision

QUALITY LEASING CO INC Inc v. INTERNATIONAL METALS LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2020

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … "For immunity from liability to exist based on absolute privilege, the statement in question must be 'relevant and pertinent to the litigation or bear some relation thereto.'" Id. at 280 (quoting Estate of Mayer v.

KILLION v. PATEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 2025

The purpose is to spare very small firms from the potentially crushing expense of mastering the intricacies of the antidiscrimination laws, establishing procedures to assure compliance, and defending against suits when … dismissal should have been without prejudice, however, because 'a dismissal with prejudice is a merits disposition,' and a court cannot enter judgment on the merits when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction or sovereign immunity

OLSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2025

Respondents argue that § 1225(b)(2) pertains to Petitioner because he is "seeking admission" and is an "applicant for admission" who is "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted." … See Castañon-Nava, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9 ("And while a noncitizen arrested in the Midwest might qualify as 'an alien present in the United States who had not been admitted,' § 1225(a)(1), the mandatory detention provision

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products

155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2001

This case clearly is factually distinguishable from Shutts . … In that case, the court accepted as true the plaintiff's allegation that he "has suffered a direct injury to his immune system” as a result of exposure to toxic substances.

EDGE v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE SALEM COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 1, 2019

She alleges the decision to cancel her contract was arbitrary and capricious; an abuse of discretion; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; and unsupported by substantial evidence … The Indiana General Assembly clearly understood that this statute would be preempted by federal law if it attempted to restrict a litigant’s ability to file a federal suit.

MUJEZINOVIC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026

Garl contends that Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead the elements of their Section 1983 claims, that he is entitled to qualified and statutory immunity, that the state law claims are barred by the Indiana Medical Malpractice … But the court declined to decide whether that fact, alone, was sufficient to establish Hodges' knowledge of the cause of his injuries because other undisputed facts did. Id.

In Re Guidant Corp. Securities Litigation

536 F. Supp. 2d 913 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 27, 2008

Clearly, the parties’ disputes over what various Defendants knew and/or communicated during the class period are at the heart of this lawsuit. … Litig., 169 F.R.D. 104, 112 (N.D.Ill.1996) (following “the sound post-purchase rule established by the Seventh Circuit in Roots ”).

Watkins v. Miller

92 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 24, 2000

Evidence is “cumulative” when it “goes to prove what has already been established by other evidence.” Smith v. … The prosecution clearly failed to produce responsive exculpatory information from the files of the Hancock County Sheriffs Department.

FREEMAN v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, INC.

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

The Seventh Circuit has clearly and unequivocally stated, The plaintiff "must establish standing at the time suit is filed and cannot manufacture standing afterwards." Pollack v. … And finally, the Supreme Court has clearly stated, "While the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the