Case law

GODFREY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 17, 2026

When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Lake County, 33 F.4th 960, 966 (7th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a disability-based equal protection challenge to pension-plan offerings “qualifies . . . for rational basis review”); Mullins v.

GRAHAM v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2019

“For a delay in treatment to qualify as deliberate indifference, we must weigh the seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing treatment.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). … To certify a class, a plaintiff must establish, among other things, that he will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

SCHWARTZ v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 15, 2021

In August 2017, J.S.’s doctors recommended that she be prescribed Synagis, an antibody used to immunize children against respiratory syncytical virus because her premature birth had resulted in a compromised immune … Section 502(a) clearly would preempt their claims if they were. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132; Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. at 210.

Caviness v. Apfel

4 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 1998

Caviness must establish that she suffers from a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. … She argues that her monthly regimen of oral maintenance antibiotics in combination with extra dosages as.needed to combat infections qualifies as intensive treatment.

LEATHERWOOD v. CARTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2019

“For a delay in treatment to qualify as deliberate indifference, we must weigh the seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing treatment.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). … To certify a class, a plaintiff must establish, among other things, that he will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

TUCKER v. ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 8, 2019

To establish a prima facie case, “a plaintiff must show that: (1) [she] is a member of a protected class; (2) [she] applied for and was qualified for an open position; (3) despite [her] qualifications, [she] was rejected … Tucker has established her prima facie case. See dkt. 40 at 16 (“Ms. Tucker was qualified for some of the job openings, but as to those openings her claims still fail because she cannot demonstrate pretext.”)3.

PEDEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

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

American Access has clearly articulated in their motion that their intervention is necessary as there is a dispute of fact whether Defendant Jose Pichardo Lopez qualifies as insured under American Access's policies. … Therefore, the proponent of the stay has the burden of clearly establishing the need for the Court to grant the motion. Landis at 255.

DASKALAKIS v. CP INDY DT, LLC D/B/A HYATT REGENCY INDIANAPOLIS

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

The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an 'in house' report as work product. . . . … A more or less routine investigation of a possibly resistable claim is not sufficient to immunize an investigative report developed in the ordinary course of business. . . .

Team Scandia, Inc. v. Greco

6 F. Supp. 2d 795 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 19, 1998

However, it has long been established that an agreement to a “final,” “binding,” and “non-appealable” arbitration award does not prohibit appeals based upon the arbitrator’s abuse of authority oh bias. Dean v. … Indeed, the arbitrator clearly had authority to asséss actual dainages stemming from Seandia’s breach of contract.

Routes v. Henderson

58 F. Supp. 2d 959 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 21, 1999

A letter of warning is the first official step in the progressive discipline system established by the CBA between the USPS and the Union. Ex. 42, CBA at 109. … Regardless of the language used, Gould’s message that he did not want Routes to return to work at the post office was clearly communicated to Routes. 36.After receiving the second letter from Dr.

DOE v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2024

Immunity under ITCA Doss and Devonshire argue they have statutory immunity under the ITCA for their alleged conduct as USI employees. … The Second Amended Complaint clearly alleges that Stafford is an independent contractor (Filing No. 196 ¶ 14).

Harter v. University of Indianapolis

5 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 1998

At the same time, the division in roles between attorney and witness is a vital and well established requirement of professional conduct. … Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D.Wash.1975) (by pleading affirmative defense of good faith qualified immunity in civil rights case, defendants implicitly waived privilege as to legal advice provided by the state’s attorney general

Sheyanne Van Matre individually and as parent and natural guardian of Kenyana Badders and Karter Van Matre, deceased minors v. United States of America, Muncie Housing Authority

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 2026

Under HUD's regulatory scheme, a public housing authority may issue a rental voucher to a qualifying tenant/family, who then selects a privately- owned unit to lease. … App'x 467, 468 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[T]he statute requires the federal agency only to establish 'housing quality standards' and the local housing authority to conduct inspections so that the unit is maintained according to

Bank One, NA v. Leuellen (In Re Leuellen)

322 B.R. 648 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2005

In this case, the debtors’ plan clearly classifies claims, referring to secured and unsecured claims. … Leuellen lost a good job hardly qualifies as a “whim.”

Strong v. Delaware County

976 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

Brooke are qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, nor has he shown that their reasoning and methodologies are reliable. See Ervin v. … “Even an employer’s erroneous decision making, exhibiting poor business judgment, is not sufficient to establish pretext.” Abioye v. Sundstrand Corp., 164 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir.1998).

WINDLE v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 10, 2019

Windle from the crowd of protesters was objectively reasonable, which is to say, clearly not excessive, under the circumstances. However, Mr. Windle is claiming that after he complied with Lt. … Windle’s arguments to overcome statutory immunity all rely on inferences based on the absence of probable cause, “the presence of probable cause … establishes the immunity.” Holland v.

GIBSON v. INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2020

Gibson responds that the damages she seeks will not necessarily be paid by the state, so sovereign immunity does not apply. Dkt. 118 at 11–14. … Gibson cannot establish the third element—causation, dkt. 101 at 19– 21. ISPD contends that Ms.

Continental Training Services, Inc. v. Cavazos

709 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 10, 1989

Although it is clearly reasonable to make certain determinations of eligibility outside of the procedural framework established in section 1094(c)(1)(D), see, e.g., Beth Rochel Seminary v. Bennett, 825 F.2d 478 (D.C. … Taken in *1452 context, these facts clearly indicate that the Whitehead Decision injured Superior’s reputation.

MARTIN v. VAUGHN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2023

Alternatively, Sergeant Vaughn asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Martin's excessive force claims. Id. at 11-14. Sergeant Vaughn also contends that summary judgment is appropriate on Mr. … Martin's Eighth Amendment claim, the Court need not address whether he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. See dkt. 41 at 11-14.

Shepherd v. ASI, Ltd.

295 F.R.D. 289 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2013

B], noting that it fulfills the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) by clearly and concisely setting forth: (1) the nature of the action, (2) the definition of the class certified, (3) the class claims and issues, (4) that a … In his first motion to certify class, Plaintiff listed 233 employees as qualifying for relief.