Case law

LEWIS v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 13, 2020

Lewis is not entitled to summary judgment and that they are immune from his claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. A. … Lewis could establish a violation of his constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity "because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional." Dkt. 126 at 10. As explained above, Mr.

Martin v. Miller-Eads, Inc.

47 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 1999

While the FTCA on its face is a “broad waiver” of sovereign immunity that provides for governmental liability commensurate with that of private parties, its waiver of immunity is far from absolute; many important classes … In order to succeed, Martin must establish that the VA had a duty to inspect that flowed to him. See Basicker v.

Delaney v. Carmichael

670 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1987

Alternatively, the defendants urge that they are immune from this section 1983 claim because their acts were performed as discretionary functions. II. … The plaintiff argues that the appointment procedure established by the Delaware County Code violates the provisions of Indiana Code §§ 36-8-3-20 and 36-8-10-10.

Reid v. Indianapolis Osteopathic Medical Hospital, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 13, 1989

The plaintiff counters by arguing that section 1395dd establishes federal question jurisdiction over claims of patient dumping. … Because the defendant conceded at oral argument that the Indiana medical malpractice statute establishes a negligence standard, Mr.

Jones v. Marion County Small Claims Court

701 F. Supp. 1414 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 1988

Action based on state case law, even if based solely on state common law, would qualify as “custom or usage of a state” for purposes of § 1983. … His pension from General Motors is paid from a trust qualified under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq.). 26.

Miller Pipeline Corp. v. British Gas PLC

69 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 1999

This claim language of the ’302 patent clearly describes slitting or cutting an existing pipe in half, rather than breaking the pipe into irregular fragments. While Dr. … However, this motion addresses only Miller Pipeline’s antitrust claim under the Sherman Act and so we will address facts relating to the patent infringement claims and defenses only to the extent necessary to establish a

Richcreek v. Grecu

612 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 17, 1985

It is well established that a court can enjoin a person from filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. Pavilonis v. … Plaintiffs arguments regarding the Internal Revenue laws and his exemption from them are clearly without merit and contrary to existing case law.

Leslie v. St. Vincent New Hope, Inc.

916 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 7, 1996

Finally, New Hope argues that Leslie has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. … Qualified Individual with a Disability To establish a prima facie ease of discrimination under the ADA, Leslie must also show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability.”

United States v. Clark County, Indiana

234 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 17, 2002

In order to establish claim preclusion under Indiana law, the proponent must establish that: (1) the former judgment was issued by a court with jurisdiction; (2) the matter now in issue was or might have been determined in … Our review of the record establishes clearly that the taxes assessed in this case were assessed directly against ICI. We do not perceive any factual dispute between the parties in this regard.

MERCADO v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HOSPITAL

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

In any event, the Medical Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. "A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct.

KEITH v. MASON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2022

He must also point to evidence to show that the defendants violated a right that was "clearly established" at the time of the incident. Stockton, 44 F.4th at 620. … And even if a reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Marvin v. King

734 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1990

Finally, it should be noted that the Court’s prior ruling granting summary judgment for the individual defendants on the qualified immunity issue remains intact. … Certainly it was not clearly established in January of 1985 that the defendants’ actions would violate Marvin’s constitutional rights. 2.

Brookins v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

90 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 2000

Qualified Individual with a Disability In order to succeed in making an ADA reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must establish first that he was “a qualified individual with a disability.” Id. … Corp., 101 F.3d 519 , 525 (7th Cir.1996) (“Recovery under the ADA also requires a plaintiff to establish she is a qualified individual with a disability.”)).

Long v. Anderson University

204 F.R.D. 129 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 2001

The burden is on the discovery opponent to establish that the work product doctrine immunizes the documents at issue from discovery. Allen v. Chicago Transit Authority, 198 F.R.D. 495, 499 (N.D.Ill.2001), citing U.S. v. … party to “demarcate a set of documents clearly entitled [to the privilege] without further inquiry to confidential status.”).

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

212 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2002

As such, Pain does not establish that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion on this point. 8 Contrary to Defendants’ argument, In re Dow Coming Corp., 255 B.R. 445, 525-26 (E.D.Mich.2000) establishes only … Instead, we struck a middle ground between applying no deference at all and requiring that the factors "clearly point towards” trial in the alternative forum.

Erwin v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

999 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 17, 1998

Plaintiff contends that he may recover as a “qualified individual” because of his status as a “benefit recipient.” See Plaint. Resp. Br. at 5. … The establishments enumerated in § 12181(7) clearly show that a “place of public accommodation” is a physical place, and the statute’s use of the terms “service” and “office” does not indicate otherwise.

FOSNIGHT v. JONES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 4, 2019

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even recognizing that qualified immunity is often ill-suited for resolution at this stage, the Court sees no reason to delay resolving the qualified immunity issue.

Bartlett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

206 F.R.D. 623 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 22, 2002

The party asserting the work-product doctrine must establish all of its elements on a document-by-document basis. Mo ld-Masters, 2001 WL 1558303 , at *2. … Cory & Associates, Inc., 1999 WL 617842 , *1 (N.D.Ill.1999) (holding that only documents "primarily concerned with legal assistance” are cloaked with immunity).

Beeler v. Berryhill

381 F. Supp. 3d 991 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2019

He was fully qualified for a Belgian pension and fully qualified for a U. S. pension, independently of one another. … record suggesting that such "contribution payments" were based on "earnings," as required by the WEP, 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A) ; faulted SSA for equating "earnings" with "work" in its internal operations manual as "not clearly

JONES v. CUMMINGS

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

The Supreme Court has applied a "functional approach" in determining whether the actions of government officials are afforded absolute or qualified immunity in §1983 cases. Buckley v. … On the other hand, prosecutors are entitled only to qualified immunity for actions within the prosecutor's role as administrator or investigator—such as when giving legal advice to police. Burns v.