Case law

LEWIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 3, 2026

Dismissal for “factual frivolousness” is appropriate where the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). … Plaintiff shall have through April 23, 2026, to SHOW CAUSE why final judgment should not issue due to his failure to establish a basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Implement Service, Inc. v. Tecumseh Products Co.

726 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 14, 1989

Focusing on the third of these three requirements for establishing a “franchise,” the plaintiff would be required to prove at trial facts to establish the payment of a franchise fee to the defendants. … The acts alleged by plaintiff do not clearly establish a violation of the T.R.O. A hearing would need to be held in order to determine whether a violation has occurred and to determine the extent of plaintiff’s damages.

STEWART

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 2026

fact that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she is a "qualified individual." Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S. 46, 54 (2025).

Fisher v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

152 F.R.D. 145 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 1993

Quite clearly, the evidentiary videotape must be produced prior to trial to allow inquiry and investigation into its production. … Plaintiffs Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for Production are clearly not directly related to the videotape which Defendant produced.

Steele v. Maren Engineering Corp.

460 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 2005

All of Mills’ testimony clearly establishes that he was unaware of any dangerous condition when he left Rhodes on February 1, 2001. … Clearly Mills, and plaintiff, knew that the baler was a dangerous machine by its nature.

Leimkuehler v. American United Life Insurance

752 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 2010

Some of the proprietary funds are qualified “investment companies” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. … As noted above, separate accounts are AUL proprietary funds that are not qualified as investment companies.

DOUGLAS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 24, 2026

Under the subjective component, a prisoner must establish that the defendants had a culpable state of mind — that they "were subjectively aware of these conditions and refused to take steps to correct them, showing deliberate … immunity.

SWANSON v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2024

Her disabilities substantially limited her ability to think, be active, talk, interact with others, and weakened her immune system. Id. at ¶ 24. … To establish a prima facie failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the defendant was aware of the disability; and (3)

DELONG v. Local Union 1111 UAW Retirees

347 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 10, 2004

This being so, Mary DeLong no longer qualifies as a “spouse” as defined by Union officials interpreting the UAW’s Constitution. … Rule 59(e). of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes relief when a moving party ‘clearly establish[es] either a manifest error of law or fact’ or ‘presents] newly discovered evidence.’ ” Souter v.

Castelli v. Steele

700 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 30, 1988

Clearly, all these alleged acts of negligence occurred in Indiana in Dr. Steele’s Indianapolis office. As noted, however, the place of the tor-tious conduct is not the inquiry. Here Mrs. … Specifically, the Act provides that “no action against a health care provider may be commenced in any court of this state before the claimant’s proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established pursuant

Patterson v. Howe

307 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2018

A matter that is admitted "is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." See Dkt. 23 at p. 12. III. … Use of a discovery device authorized by the Indiana Trial Rules does not immunize Mr. Howe from liability under the FDCPA regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Mr.

Gomez v. ST. VINCENT HEALTH, INC.

622 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 2008

Plaintiff Gomez’s qualifying date was November 30, 2004. Dkt. 16, Ex. C; Dkt. 31, Ex. A-l. Three different plaintiffs filed a similar suit against St. … The logic of American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal clearly points toward allowing tolling in this situation to discourage the precautionary filing of other class action lawsuits, thereby confronting the federal court system

A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman

904 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 1995

However, Casey clearly left several avenues open for such challenges. … from attorney disciplinary rules clearly violated separation of powers).

R.Z. v. Carmel Clay Schools

868 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 11, 2012

Later, during her conversation with R.Z. and her mother, Campbell draws the distinction quite clearly: Sherri: So he can have his opinion that gay people are just fíne, but she can’t have her opinion that they’re not? … Because the Plaintiffs' claims are disposed of on these grounds, the Court does not address whether Campbell may also be entitled to qualified immunity or whether CCS may avoid liability under Monell.

Turner v. Berryhill

244 F. Supp. 3d 852 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2017

He must further establish that his impairments “meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. … Clearly the ALJ provided an explanation for determining Turner’s RFC.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

615 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 1985

Merrell was clearly suing in his capacity as a private citizen. … Registrants who submit data with notice of the provisions established by the 1978 amendments, and its qualified protection of trade secrets, can claim no property interest under state law in such data.

Heller v. Hodgin

928 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 1996

Hanna said that Plaintiff clearly violated school rules against the use of obscenity. Plaintiffs mother testified that Ms. … Plaintiffs suspension followed an incident in which Plaintiff clearly violated a school rule of student behavior.

Stout v. Bottorff

246 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 1965

What was said in this regard in the “Statement of Facts” appended to the Hendricks decision was clearly for illustrative purposes relating to the issue there. … Clearly the vote of the Morgan or Hendricks county voter is not approximately equal to that of the Marion County voter.

FLOWERS v. BELL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 2023

Legal Standard The legal standard on summary judgment is well established: Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine … Because Bell's actions were constitutional even without a warrant, the Court need not address his arguments regarding good-faith mistake and qualified immunity.

Short v. Sullivan

730 F. Supp. 955 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1989

The claimant bears the burden of establishing that steps 1 through 4 have *959 been met. … Jones was qualified to render an opinion as to the availability of jobs for a person with one arm. It does, however, indicate that the AU was aware of Dr. Jones’ report. The AU noted that Dr.