Case law

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.

Hinrichs v. Bosma

410 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2006

But comity does not amount to immunity from the United States Constitution. Adams v. … . § 1983 clearly provides for relief when state officials violate federal constitutional rights). IV. Likelihood of Success A.

ROBERTS v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2023

immunity." … The Court notes that since the Parties filed that Motion, the previously established deadlines for their initial disclosures and preliminary witness and exhibit lists have passed. [Dkt. 40.]

MILLS v. NUNGESTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 18, 2020

“A prosecutor acting in an investigative capacity may claim only the same qualified immunity that protects police officers and other law-enforcement investigators.” … Since Houchin was clearly exercising a prosecutorial function, the Court holds he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

National Labor Relations Board v. Evansville Courier Co.

937 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 1996

However, the closing paragraph of Endicott states: The subpoena power delegated by the Statute as here exercised is so clearly within the limits of Congressional authority that it is not necessary to discuss the constitutional … The Supreme Court declined to establish such a privilege. Id. at 690 , 92 S.Ct. at 2661 .

United States v. Williams

792 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 1992

Rule 404(b) clearly requires that the Government provide notice to the defendant in “advance of trial.” Id. … Maryland exposes clearly that Brady is not a rule of discovery.

Young v. Magnequench International, Inc.

188 F.R.D. 504 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 1999

City of Burbank, 101 F.R.D. 59, 61-62 (N.D.Ill.1984) (stating that numerosity is met because “joinder of over 250 members is clearly impracticable”); Swanson v. … It is Youngs burden to prove that numerosity has been met, but he has clearly failed to sustain that burden. 2.

BOYKINS v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2022

Boykins has not established a constitutional violation, the Court need not address the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 667 (7th 3 Even if Ms. … Conyers's defense of qualified immunity.

Demos v. City of Indianapolis

126 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 2000

The regulation clearly states that the pay-docking system of public employers must be “established pursuant to principles of public accountability.” 29 C.F.R. § 541 .5d. … The Seventh Circuit clearly allocates to the employer the burden of establishing whether an employee fits within an exemption to the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA.

L.B. ex rel. Benjamin v. Greater Clark County Schools

458 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 20, 2006

In other words, qualifying agreements under the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (j), are not restricted to agreements made by agents of local schools or state departments of education. … The IDEA clearly provides that state or local educational agencies can agree to a child’s changed current placement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (j), and Burlington and other cases establish that decisions resulting from the administrative

GRIFFIN v. SANDERS

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

Qualified Immunity For the first time, in their reply, the Defendants argue in a single sentence8 that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See Dkt. 108 at 1.) … immunity."

Craft v. United States

879 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 1995

Those contributions, however, have not been clearly identified as contribu *929 tions to that exclusively employee-generated plan. William C. … Factors to consider in determining whether the plan in question qualifies include: (1) whether the written plan states that its purpose is to qualify as an accident or health plan within the meaning of § 105; (2) whether

GUTHRIE v. CLINE

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

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) ("Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages."). … Guthrie clearly fails to satisfy the third threshold requirement—a likelihood of success on the merits.

Rednour v. Wayne Township

51 F. Supp. 3d 799 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2014

To establish a prima facie claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her job either with or without reasonable … In order to prevail on a “failure to accommodate” ADA claim, a plaintiff must set forth evidence establishing that: “(1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer was aware of her disability; and (

Love v. Bolinger

927 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 22, 1996

Recent Seventh Circuit case-law on this point establishes that a cover-up leads to a denial of access to the courts only where the cover-up was to some extent successful. … Because we find that there was no underlying constitutional or statutory violation, we need not address the issues of quasi-judicial or qualified immunity raised in the Motion to Dismiss.

Burns Harbor Fish Co., Inc. v. Ralston

800 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1992

Such an expectation failed to take into account the power of the DNR or of the Indiana General Assembly to regulate in the public interest, a power that was clearly spelled out by statute. … the privileges and immunities clause or equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. 17 .

HUTCHINSON v. NALE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 2024

Hutchinson plausibly alleged a procedural due process claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged actions and inactions were not clearly established constitutional violations. … Hutchinson has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we need not and do not address Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Gallert v. Courtaulds Packaging Co. Inc.

4 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 30, 1998

Courtaulds admits that it files a consolidated federal tax return, none of its divisions file separate returns, and Courtaulds’s assets are not immune from collection of an adverse judgment against Thatcher Plastic. … The movant must establish that the transferee forum is “clearly more convenient.”

BESECKER v. LOOP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2023

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v. … Qualified immunity, however, is a doctrine established and recognized by the United States Supreme Court and in this Circuit. See Estate of Davis v. Ortiz, 987 F.3d 635, 638 (7th Cir. 2021).

Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. MCM Enterprises, Inc.

319 B.R. 157 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 3, 2005

However, we review mixed questions of law and fact more deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard. … The sale by the Cook County Collector of the Tax Sale Parcel to Phoenix clearly qualifies as a sale in error under § 21-310, and, consequently, Phoenix would be entitled to compensation for “the amount paid, [and] any interest