Case law

MENES ANKH EL also known as WENDELL BROWN v. INDIANA STATE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2022

Instead, to receive the requested relief, the moving party “must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” … To the extent that Plaintiff raises a claim based on the theory of "sovereign citizen" immunity as a Moorish National, such arguments have been universally rejected by the Courts as frivolous. See United States v.

Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Crompton Corp.

381 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 2005

But if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case, summary judgment is not only appropriate, but mandated. … Clearly, the term “alkoxy” is to be construed in a manner consistent with the references for other substituent groups.

WILLIAMSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2025

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. … their disability academic adjustment for all class that are required to obtain a degree," and that Ivy Tech breached its contract with Williamson by failing to provide a reasonable disability accommodation and having a qualified

SCOTT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 13, 2026

Hughes, 26 F. 4th 419, 435 (7th Cir. 2022) ("Liability under [Monell] is difficult to establish, requiring a § 1983 plaintiff to prove that a municipality, either through an express policy or an implied policy of inaction … 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.

Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Intercare Health Plans, Inc.

101 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 25, 2000

The sponsor contended that these money damages were the functional equivalent of disgorged benefits obtained by the administrator and would make the sponsor whole again, concluding that this remedy qualified as classic equitable … This position is clearly incorrect. The commentary to 1447(c) expressly states that it is within the court’s discretion to award costs and fees.

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF SCOTTSBURG, INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2020

evidence of pretext unless those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position … The evidence establishes that Ms.

MARTIN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 2, 2026

Martin did not clearly testify as to what part of his head was injured. Dkt. 97 at 3. No one else saw Mr. Martin fall. Dkt. 100-1 at 34. Sgt. … Martin's Eighth Amendment rights on the merits, the Court need not explore the defendants’ arguments related to qualified immunity. Distribution: KEVIN L.

Salmon v. West Clark Community Schools

64 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 1999

Clearly this approach is disingenuous. … Aside from the obvious fact that Salmon, as an equal contributor in the “interactive process,” never herself suggested this alternative, the undisputed evidence reveals that she clearly expressed a preference for reassignment

United States v. RICHARDS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2021

APPEAL The United States of America (the "United States"), on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), appeals the Bankruptcy Court's April 29, 2020 and October 5, 2020 Orders establishing … To do so, the debtors "calculate a tax return for all income, and then a second, pro forma tax return removing all qualifying sales income." Id.

WADE v. STIGDON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 10, 2020

And, in any event, even if Bridges applied, Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because "it was not clearly established at the time that a state agency and its employees were prohibited from taking … Finally, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, Wade argues, because "'the law [wa]s settled that . . . the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions

BROOKS v. CITY OF CARMEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 16, 2020

Summary judgment was denied as to Brooks' First Amendment claim; however, the Court concluded that Haney is entitled to qualified immunity against the First Amendment claim. … The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance

603 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 1985

Granting a preliminary injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power not to be indulged in except in cases clearly warranting it. Fox Valley Harvestore, Inc. v. A.O. … Because the same elements must be proved to establish a violation of the Indi *1087 ana Monopoly Act, I.C. § 24-1-2-1, as must be proved to establish a violation of the Sherman Act, § 1, or § 2, Photovest Corp. v.

Perkins Furniture Transport, Inc. v. United States

333 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 1971

The Commission was entrusted by Congress with the execution of the United States of America’s national transportation policy established by Congress. … The Commission was warranted by the facts before it in finding that Ferree qualified and was entitled to a certificate under Section 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act (Title 49 U.S.C.

LELI v. V2X, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 16, 2023

The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity as to certain tort claims but expressly preserves sovereign immunity as to "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces … This is not the type of incidental activity that should qualify as 'combatant' for purposes of the FTCA.").

French v. Owens

538 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 7, 1982

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. … Past General Assemblies have also failed to appropriate funds sufficient to permit the defendants to hire a sufficient number of qualified personnel and to establish adequate programs as contemplated by Indiana law.

JANE DOES 1-4 v. BUTLER UNIVERSITY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 29, 2024

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a notice pleading regime, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. … Without more, that allegation does not establish an absolute privilege under Indiana law. The lead cases, Abbott, 148 N.E.3d 1091, and Hartman v.

PERRY v. LITTLEJOHN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 7, 2020

Consequently, Holleman's burden was to "'show that the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right' and that 'the right was clearly established at [that] time.'" Id. at 877. … Here, the defendants' brief mentions qualified immunity, dkt. 114 at 7, but no argument is developed or presented so it is waived.

Awbrey v. United States

959 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 28, 1997

The exclusion may be ambiguous under other circumstances, but where it is established that the United States will be liable for any damages resulting from the employee’s negligent or wrongful conduct, the exclusion would … Under the clear language of this definition, even to qualify as an “insured” the United States would have to be liable for Ms. Bell’s use of the vehicle.

WARD v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2022

On September 20, 2013, a petition to establish paternity was filed in the Circuit Court of Vigo County, Indiana. (Dkt. 25-1 at 1.) … The parties moving for judgment on the pleadings must clearly demonstrate "that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved . . . ." Moss v. Martin, 473 F.3d 694, 698 (7th Cir. 2007).

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Insurance

588 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 25, 2008

Preliminary Injunction Requirements “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he.is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief … Gregory, Judge Hand famously wrote that "a transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation.