Case law

Stinnett v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

101 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 18, 2000

Excusing compliance with policy provisions that require physician treatment during a claimed disability period is justified only when the existence of the disability is clearly established and there is a rational basis for … Stinnett suffered a qualifying disability under the terms of those policies during the time period in question.

Jackson v. Brinker

147 F.R.D. 189 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 1993

The Indiana Department of Correction (“Department”), originally named as a defendant, was granted judgment on the pleadings on the ground of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. (Entry and Order of October 20, 1992). … Because the Health Records Act appears in this case to constitute a state statute specifically requiring access to the plaintiff’s medical records, it qualifies as an exception to § 5-14-3-4’s protections.

United States Ex Rel. Durcholz v. FKW Inc.

997 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1998

The record clearly establishes that the relevant government officials knew and approved of the fact that the project would be performed by dredging and that its price would be documented with conventional line items. … Durcholz’s bid clearly was for dredging or conventional excavation, whichever FKW preferred.

SHIVELY v. PLATT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2025

Shively was not subject to an objectively serious condition, they were not deliberately indifferent to the risk of asbestos exposure, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Mr. Shively has not responded. … immunity.

Pike v. Caldera

188 F.R.D. 519 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 1999

Strode was, in an objective sense, highly qualified for the position. … Strode appeared qualified for the job to a selecting official. Evidence that showed a selecting official would not think Ms. Strode was qualified for the job would be responsive.

Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill

377 F. Supp. 3d 924 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 2019

Glazer thus clearly has standing to bring this lawsuit. III. … Rather, we read Doe to hold that possible participation in a collateral criminal prosecution is insufficient to establish a connection with the enforcement of the underlying civil regulatory statute.

Steckler v. United States

195 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 1, 1961

Clearly the former case is distinguishable on the facts. There the court was dealing with penalties and interest sought to be imposed after the filing of the petition for arrangement. … As respects the defendant, United States of America, it, of course, has sovereign immunity and may not be sped without its consent.

Novelty, Inc. v. Mountain View Marketing, Inc.

265 F.R.D. 370 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 21, 2009

The record before us establishes that Novelty failed to do so in the following two respects. … Either way, it fails to qualify as a privilege log as that term is used in this Circuit; therefore, Novelty has failed under the Court’s July 1, 2009, Order. .

Green v. Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company

204 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 1962

It is well established that penalty statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of those sought to be penalized. See 26 I.L.E. Statutes § 175 (1960). … Co., 20 Ind.App. 515 , 51 N.E. 143 (1898) (facts not given; appeared to be only solicitation; clearly no office in state); Memphis & C. Packet Co. v.

Star Scientific, Inc. v. Carter

204 F.R.D. 410 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2001

This, standing alone, is insufficient to establish good cause under Rule 26(c). … However, the Court holds that Plaintiffs establish good cause for the entry of a protective order to secure their trade secrets.

BRODHEAD V. KOKOMO CITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2020

immunity. … City of Chi., 829 F.3d 869, 877 n. 10 (7th Cir. 2016) ("The defendants alternatively argue that we should affirm based on qualified immunity.

Bates v. Roche Diagnostics Corp.

971 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 12, 2013

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot establish she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA at the time of her termination. … As set forth above, Plaintiff failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability and thus, Plaintiff cannot maintain an ADA failure to accommodate claim. See, e.g., Healy v. Nat’l Bd.

Glens Falls Insurance v. Cook Bros.

23 F.R.D. 269 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 13, 1959

The instant action is clearly in personam and is not a class action. Sigma Chi Fraternity Foundation is a citizen of Indiana. … The Aetna case establishes both plaintiff’s and Sigma Chi’s status as a real party in interest under Rule 17, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice par. 17.09, pp. 1346-1350.

FRAZIER v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2025

An allegation is frivolous when it is "clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible." Felton v. … As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Watts v.

White v. Boehringer Mannheim Corp.

28 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 1998

Trust, 159 F.3d 1001, 1012 (7th Cir.1998) (finding that an ADA plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he is a qualified individual with a disability). … White’s allergic skin condition may be an uncomfortable impairment, but the record clearly demonstrates that it has not substantially limited White from working.

Underwood v. Waddell

743 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1990

The Court ruled that Waddell was entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim, but that Underwood had, on the basis of his allegations in the Complaint, stated a claim under the First Amendment. … At this juncture, however, the issues are more clearly framed and there is no reason to delay ruling on these matters.

CLAY v. THORUP

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 6, 2025

Code § 34-11-2-4 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims for adult claimants in Indiana). … Because the statute of limitations bars the individual capacity claims, the Court need not decide which individual capacity claims, if any, are futile due to the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.

KYLE v. INDIANA I.D.O.C.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2025

immunity. … immunity.

ESLICK v. REAGLE

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

Alternatively, they maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate a clearly established right. … The Court need not address the Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. The Defendants have also raised a qualified immunity defense in their summary judgment motion (Dkt. 96 at 19–21).

YOUNG v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 6, 2023

Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because, among other things, IMPD is an improper party to this suit, Detective Kuchta-Drane is shielded by qualified immunity or law enforcement immunity, and Ms. … The Defendants seek summary judgment because, among other things, IMPD is an improper party, Detective Kuchta-Drane is shielded by qualified immunity or law enforcement immunity, and Ms.