Case law

Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita

458 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2006

Assuming arguendo that the State was required to empirically substantiate its justification for SEA 483, in our view it has clearly done so. … Clearly, the specific identification requirement imposed by the challenged statute cannot be deemed to be material.”)

Luedtke Engineering Co. v. Indiana Limestone Co.

592 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 9, 1983

No rate was established between the parties before the purchase order was sent. … In addition, the Court finds that in prior dealings a specified shipping rate between the parties had never been clearly established or complied with.

Brightwell v. United States

805 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 10, 1992

To the extent that the plaintiffs seek to quiet title, this Court clearly has jurisdic *1469 tion. … In this case, there is no clear evidence that ISC intended for there to be no merger, but the circumstances clearly support an inference of such intent.

Hightshue v. AIG Life Insurance

939 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 1996

which he is reasonably qualified by reason of his education, training, or experience.” … Hightshue’s medical records, her respiratory problems clearly antedate the incident of June 9,1992.” Aiken Aff., Ex. B, p. B-313.

Douglas v. DeBruyn

936 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 1996

Under the recently amended § 1915, as with the previous version of § 1915, a district court may review the complaint and dismiss on its own initiative those claims premised on meritless legal theories or that clearly lack … It is well-established that these basic human needs include “reasonably adequate ventilation, sanitation, bedding, hygienic materials, and utilities.” Lewis v. Lane, 816 F.2d 1165, 1171 (7th Cir.1987), citing Ramos v.

Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius

914 F. Supp. 2d 943 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 2012

At this preliminary stage, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have a reasonable likelihood of establishing that the mandate substantially burdens their practice of religion. … Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 , 94 S.Ct. 2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”).

LB Ex Rel. Benjamin v. GREATER CLARK CTY. SCHOOLS

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

s parents of the defendants' position that "[b]y operation of law, the BSEA's Decision establishes that Summit Academy is no longer [L.B.' … 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

Stout v. Hendricks

228 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 1964

There was a bill introduced which clearly ignored the mandate of Article 4, Sections 4 and 5, because it sought to enumerate and apportion on the basis of both male and female inhabitants. The bill failed. … Privileges equal. — The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. § 25.

Enviroplan, Inc. v. Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

900 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 19, 1995

Whatever sufficiency the first visit may have lacked, we believe the second visit in December 1993 clearly establishes minimum contacts. … Accordingly, Defendant has not borne its burden of establishing that the Western District of Oklahoma would be clearly more convenient. VI.

Pohl v. United Air Lines, Inc.

194 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2002

In Weigel , the court upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of the former employer on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she was a "qualified individual with a disability … Clearly, she had adequate personal knowledge on which to base the statements cited in this opinion.

Warrick v. Pierce

554 F. Supp. 895 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 5, 1983

Warrick was rated “Qualified” (R. 521), while Russell was rated “Best Qualified” and selected (R. 519). 58. … To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejections. Id.

In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury

854 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 10, 1994

Thus, even assuming the records in Exhibit C qualify as “new evidence” to trigger reconsideration of the prior order, rather than supporting the Government’s motion they defend the court’s decision in [Corporation] Grand … Presumably the Government expects the court to look at the sheet, notice the amount charged each patient, and conclude that the only way to establish overbilling occurred is to allow the Government to procure notes of counseling

Healy v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc.

870 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 3, 2012

Baten clearly establish this discrepancy with respect to Matthew. … Baten’s testimony establishes that Matthew may have a relative personal weakness when it comes to these areas, which weakness results from his reading disability, but her testimony clearly establishes that he is not substantially

Wathen v. Allison Engine Co. Div. of Rolls Royce Aerospace Group

102 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 18, 2000

Wathen establish the existence of material fact issues necessitating a trial. … However, Wathen clearly admitted to this proposition in her deposition. Q: "Now, you say ‘if you would have got the promotion in 1995.'

PARRISH v. MILLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 4, 2025

To state a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, the Parrishes must allege they were qualified individuals with a disability and that Defendants were aware of their disability yet failed to provide an accommodation … As to the remaining claims, "[u]nder established abstention doctrines, however, a federal court may, and often must, decline to exercise its jurisdiction where doing so would intrude upon the independence of the state

Stinnett v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

58 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 1999

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.

McDonald Ex Rel. McDonald v. New Palestine Youth Baseball League, Inc.

561 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 15, 1983

Therefore, the nexus requirement in a § 1983 action also must be established in a § 1985(3) action. … The Board of Trustees establishes the policies, rules, and regulations of the League.

LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC v. HUSTON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 2024

Each of the plaintiff-subsidiaries are qualified to bid in MISO except Central Transmission, which is qualified in PJM. Id. at 5. … Constitution grants sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense that IURC must prove. See On-Site Screening, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2012).

ATES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 5, 2025

Ates further argues that he does not need a medical expert to establish causation because his COVID-19 positive test established that he had contracted COVID-19. … Wurcel is not qualified to offer such opinion. Specifically, "Dr.

AgMax, Inc. v. Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.

795 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 15, 1992

Countrymark is immune from liability under the Sherman Antitrust Act for conspiring with its members or monopolizing a given market unless such anticompetitive actions constitute predatory practices. … However, since the question is a close one, the court concludes that the immunity provided under the Clayton and Capper-Volstead Acts does not so clearly resolve AgMax’s claims as to leave AgMax with only a negligible likelihood