Case law

REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS v. ROKITA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2024

Reporters Committee is not asserting standing by attempting to "convert ordinary program costs into an injury in fact," but has clearly demonstrated "new burdens . . . created by the law [it] is challenging." … The terms "serious inconvenience" and "alarm," however, did not give sufficient notice because they did not specify what type of behavior qualified as causing "serious inconvenience" or "alarm." Id. at 462.

CAFE PATACHOU AT CLAY TERRACE, LLC v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

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

Mar. 12, 2021) ("If loss of use alone qualified as direct physical loss to property, then the term 'physical' would have no meaning."); MHG Hotels, LLC v. Emcasco Ins. … The Policy under review here clearly covers a loss to Patachou's physical property; it does not cover the owners' reduced use of the property in any particular fashion.

United States v. Cross

113 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2000

Moreover, the case law clearly establishes that the government must prove not only that a defendant knew that the property involved represented illegal proceeds but also the defendant intended to promote an unlawful activity … It must be noted, however, that none of the purported "affidavits” submitted by her qualify as an affidavit or as an un-sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 .

United States v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC.

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

The federal government then pays to the state the statutorily established share of the total amount expended as medical assistance under the state plan. Id. … "After the amendments, however, only disclosures in federal trials and hearings and in federal reports and investigations qualify as public disclosures." Id.

HURT v. VANTLIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2020

Based on the above, the Court is not convinced that this is the case, because the actions of Defendants on which Plaintiffs intend to rely to establish liability do not appear to be the type that would be justified by the … immunity.

Lautzenhiser Technologies, LLC v. Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc.

752 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 8, 2010

John clearly had high hopes for the product. … A: I — I became — in 2004 I — I was seeing the current reversal that I would say — I’ll qualify that, that any manufacturer using a pulse with modulated controller that was shorting the fets [sic, FETS] between power pulses

BROOKS v. DUDEK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2025

It is well-established that review of the ALJ's opinion is subject to a very differential standard, and the ALJ need only "minimally articulate" her rationale. Elder v. … The RFC clearly contained aspects of Dr. Sprinkle's opinion, appropriately reflecting the ALJ's decision that the opinion was "somewhat" persuasive. For example, Dr.

THOMSON v. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION

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

Notwithstanding Roche's internal dispute resolution procedures, the ICP Policy sub- mitted with Roche's Answer states clearly, at the bottom of each page, that it became effec- tive on May 25, 2022. … App. 1983) (written retirement plan does not qualify as a written employment contract).

HARDIN v. United States

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

If a petitioner cannot establish one of the Strickland prongs, the court need not consider the other. Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). … Failed to appeal the sentence even though the Court clearly indicated that the right to appeal the sent[e]nce was still available.

BITNER v. KIJAKAZI

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

STANDARD OF REVIEW To qualify for disability, a claimant must be disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. … In the decision, the ALJ clearly identifies Ms. Owens as Tiffany's primary care provider and includes her assessment of Ms.

PRICE v. DANFREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 28, 2022

Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's pre-accident medical records establish that he suffered from the same conditions prior to the collision. … They must clearly identify the witness, state the subject matter of the expected testimony, and summarize actual opinions. Id. Slabaugh, 2015 WL 1396606, at *3.

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Emisphere Technologies, Inc.

408 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 6, 2006

Some of this information was public, but clearly not all of it was. … As noted, some of the slides from that presentation are clearly marked as confidential Emisphere information. See Ex. 463 at 212, 219. Dr.

CONTENT & COMMERCE, INC. v. CHANDLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 2022

The Members are supposed to receive profit distributions in accordance with the Payout Percentages established in the Operating Agreement. Records kept by Mr. … Chandler continues to receive and answer questions regarding the Video from customers who have purchased it, as she is the only Member qualified to deal with such matters.

Sierra Club v. Gates

499 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 2007

This testing established that hy-drolysate qualified as a corrosive capable of damaging skin and producing gastrointestinal injury, as would be expected from similar caustic solutions. … Irvine testified that the “report clearly demonstrates that there’s no expected reformation in hydrolysate under normal conditions....

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Perrigo Co.

202 F. Supp. 3d 918 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2016

Slocum is an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” qualified to render an opinion concerning infringement, See Fed. R. Evid. 702. The thrust of Defendants’ Daubert challenge is that Dr. … Plaintiffs have established that use of Amneal’s applicator will meet this limitation.

Harmony Home of Huntington, Inc. v. Executive Director, Indiana Department of Homeland Security, The Members of the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission, Indiana Department of Homeland Security

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026

Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of … Defendants do not dispute that they treat the Home differently than nuclear family homes or foster homes, so Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. 2.

GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION v. CARDINAL ETHANOL, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 3, 2022

· Vague Billing – Each billing entry should provide a sufficiently detailed billing description so that the specific nature of the legal service provided can be clearly understood. … defendants submitted affidavits identifying the educational background, experience, and rates charged by some, but not all, of the attorneys and support staff that provided services during the course of this litigation, and establishing

BIOCONVERGENCE LLC v. ATTARIWALA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 2019

Attariwala qualify as trade secrets. Accordingly, we turn next to assess whether Ms. … Until the evidence establishes that Ms.

THOMAS v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021

Gentiva Health Servs., 356 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[U]nder Indiana law a prima facie case in medical malpractice cannot be established without expert medical testimony."). … Thomas clearly suffered back pain at FCI-Terre Haute, it is not clear what brought on his symptoms or how the medical staff could have better treated his pain.

United States v. BOARD OF SCH. COM'RS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, IND.

368 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 1973

Those who testified to the contrary tended to qualify their opinions, and in some instances the facts presented by such witnesses simply did not support their conclusions. For example, Dr. … the General Assembly's seeming lack of attention to the problem to date, as the Court has no reason to doubt that the able members of that body will do their sworn duty to support the Constitution, once that duty is more clearly