Case law

Laffin v. Sullivan

759 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 29, 1990

To establish disability based on an organic mental disorder, the plaintiff must meet the following requirements: A. … Laffin’s afflictions and determined that each one separately did not qualify as a disability based on criteria in the Secretary’s listing.

Amos v. Vigo County Council

240 F. Supp. 3d 937 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2017

Coroner is qualified as a pathologist and has agreed to perform autopsies without an additional charge , to Vigo County. [Filing No. 35-10 at 3.] … The Court’s Practices and Procedures clearly set forth in Appendix A how to cite to exhibits in a brief.

Indiana State Employees Association, Inc. v. Negley

357 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 1973

There we pointed out that Vitarelli, an Interior Department employee who had not qualified for statutory protection under the Civil Service Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 632 et seq., ‘could have been summarily discharged by the Secretary … The public interest with reference to the tenure of state agency employees was clearly illustrated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as follows: “. . .

Eli Lilly and Co. v. SICOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

705 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2010

While they are correct that a public presentation such as this might qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b), Ecolochem, 227 F.3d at 1369-70 , the Bergstrom Slides to not qualify as prior art. … The reference or evidence used to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must qualify as prior art under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102 . Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.

Rudolph v. Rubin

31 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 1999

The Prima Facie Case In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, Rudolph must show (1) she was in the protected age group of forty or older; (2) she applied for and was qualified for the … Rudolph clearly disagrees with the emphasis Customs placed on the need for technical knowledge and advanced education in filling the new positions.

Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly and Co.

663 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2009

These facts clearly demonstrate that Ms. … Schaefer-LaRose fully qualifies as exempt under the FLSA’s administrative exemption. C.

Trattner v. American Fletcher Mortgage Investors

74 F.R.D. 352 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 1976

In order to qualify for certain tax advantages as a real estate investment trust (REIT) under the Internal Revenue Code, in particular, 26 U.S.C. §§ 856-858 , AFMI was required to concentrate the preponderance of its investments … The plaintiffs, seeking to represent the purported class, have the burden of establishing the four prerequisites to the maintenance of a class action found in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Planned Parenthood v. COMMISSIONER OF IND.

794 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2011

It applies only to the extent that the provider "continues to be qualified," as the Medicaid Act "clearly does not confer a right on a recipient to enter an unqualified [provider] and demand a hearing to certify it, nor does … services willing to render services in accordance with the fee schedules established by the state."

BOUYE v. HOWARD

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

Bouye's Eighth Amendment rights.4 4 At trial, Sergeant Williams argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that there is no established case law discussing the … immunity.

Olayan v. Holder

833 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2011

Specifically, he asserts that the IJ’s decision granting him asylum is immune from collateral attack. … Next, he provides a laundry list of reasons why he believes he does not qualify for a mandatory denial of asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (c)(2). Id. at 11 .

MATTINGLY v. MARION SUPERIOR COURT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2023

Defendants argue that this immunity bars Ms. … (finding district court properly determined Assistant State's Attorneys had inherent policymaking authority, clearly defined by statute).

Selch v. Letts

792 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 1992

For each work activity, the manual also established performance standards. … immunity into a defense of virtual absolute immunity.

Bowers v. Federation Internationale De L'Automobile

461 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2006

Each of these tickets clearly states on the front: “NO REFUND.” … The uniform weight of established case law holds that a failure to satisfy the subjective expectations of spectators at a sporting event is not actionable under law. See, e.g., Seko Air Freight, Inc. v.

Harrison v. Anderson

300 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 22, 2004

as a decision ’involv[ing] an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.' ” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 . … However, the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from the Supreme Court’s cases is that the “the right to present ... witnesses to establish a defense” is clearly established as "a fundamental element of due process of law

Sann v. Mastrian

280 F.R.D. 437 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2011

A claim of work product protection must be made on a document-by-document basis, and the party resisting disclosure has the burden of establishing that the documents qualify as work product. Pippenger v. … numbering each log entry and including the type of privilege or other protection from disclosure (e.p., work product) asserted for each document and a specific explanation of why each document is privileged or otherwise immune

Burns v. Terre Haute Regional Hospital

581 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 2, 1983

Plaintiff clearly meets two of the criteria. … Defendants’ burden is to demonstrate the employee hired other than the plaintiff was as qualified, not more qualified. Bur-dine, supra.

Casey Corp. v. Big Blue River Conservancy District (In Re Casey Corp.)

46 B.R. 473 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 1985

Additionally, and alternatively, the. evidence clearly establishes extensive, detailed and virtually day-to-day supervision by the Government. … This Court hesitates to change the law of this case, but sees no reason to continue the case against the SCS when the law is clearly against Casey and in favor of the SCS. A.

Promote Innovation LLC v. Roche Diagnostics Corp.

793 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 3, 2011

The decision clearly was not “immune ... to reversal or amendment.” Id. at 1334. This fact is significant. … But this paragraph only invites the Court to engage in speculation based on the existence of a licensing agreement; it in no way establishes intent or knowledge.

SWANSON v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of Lilly's failure to accommodate under the ADA, Swanson must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Lilly was aware of her disability; and (3) Lilly failed … Because Swanson has failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability, her claim automatically fails, and the Court need not discuss other arguments raised by the parties.

Mehler v. Bennett

581 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 1984

In order to establish dependency when dependent next of kin are the beneficial claimants, it is necessary to show a need or necessity for support on the part of those persons alleged to be dependent, coupled with an actual … Mehler and possibly the corporation itself, the Court is not of the opinion that based upon the facts of this case that the Mehlers qualify as dependent next of kin under the Indiana Wrongful Death Statute.