Case law

BANKHEAD

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 19, 2026

Bankhead did not throw urine, the record clearly shows that the Defendants had a need to use force to restore order. See McCottrell, 933 F.3d at 663. Mr. … Bankhead's Eighth Amendment rights, the Court does not discuss the Defendants' defense of qualified immunity. IV.

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.

Andriakos v. University of Southern Indiana

867 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 1992

When further questioned about the body’s immune response he had incorrect data base. … The employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The prima facie case has four elements.

MIDDLETON v. VINARDI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2021

Finally, Major Vinardi's qualified immunity defense fails. … It was clearly established at all relevant times that prison officials must take reasonable measures to avoid exposing inmates to unnecessarily cold temperatures. See Dixon, 114 F.3d at 642.

Austin Powder Co. v. Wallwork

761 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 1990

In that position Wallwork was responsible for maintaining previously established customer relationships; expanding Austin’s base of customers; expanding lines with established customers; field service work; and general customer … Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 25 is an advertisement which depicts ten hard hats each with a different service that the technical representative was represented as being qualified to provide customers.

LOVE v. PRESTEL

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

The facts to establish liability, as found by the Court, were stated in the June 15, 2020, Order: On February 18, 2018, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. … Sept. 30, 1999) ($140 per day of unjustified confinement), rev’d on qualified immunity grounds, 256 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2001); McClary v. Kelly, 237 F.3d 185 (2d.

INDIANA FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC v. COOK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 11, 2020

IFWS argues that as a matter of law irreparable harm is established, but it can also be established as a matter of fact. … The Court is persuaded by IFWS's argument that the ATC's response does nothing to rebut the assertion that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars monetary damages in federal court, which establishes the absence of

National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n (In Re Wabash Valley Power Ass'n)

111 B.R. 752 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 1990

As such, the finding was clearly erroneous. *774 E. … To the contrary, it wanted to establish that the tariff in question applied not only to partial-requirements municipals, but also to all-requirements REMCs.

Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis

926 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 25, 2013

Chapter 807 of the City-County Code regulates adult entertainment establishments, and, under the definitions set out in § 807-103, each of the plaintiffs qualifies as an “adult bookstore.” … store at which the crime actually occurred, which clearly might skew the data.

Sedwick v. West

92 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2000

It was determined by VA Human Resources in Livonia, Michigan that Sedwick, along with five others, was qualified for the position. He was not selected for the position. … The demotion surely is; the other examples clearly not. Sweeney, 149 F.3d at 556 (citation omitted).

Schott v. Huntington National Bank

914 F. Supp. 2d 933 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 27, 2012

. § 2605 (e)(1)(B), which governs qualified written requests (“QWRs”) for information related to the servicing of federal mortgage loans. … Labeling this statement an actionable misrepresentation would be absurd; it is clearly of the same bare-bones, conclusory ilk that is fatal to a fraud claim.

Wilson v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.

699 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 1987

Simply stated, defendants assert that Goulds, as a purchaser of the turbine, qualifies as a user or consumer as defined by I.C. § 33-1-1.5-2. Defendants cite the Court to Dague v. … United Engineers contends that services it rendered (design, procurement, and construction) were at all times subject to the specifications established by G.E. pursuant to the contract heretofore mentioned.

DOVE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 16, 2025

qualified for the Correctional Sergeant positions, that Sergeant Jacho was less qualified but promoted instead of him, and that Sergeant Jacho's promotion establishes that IDOC's reason for not promoting Mr. … Dove has not produced sufficient evidence to establish that he was qualified for the position of Correctional Sergeant.

MOSLEY v. RIPLEY COUNTY INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2022

As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Olson v. … The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Miller v. United States Postal Service

815 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 1993

Since Congress clearly considered the question of which postal workers would be entitled to judicial review under Chapter 75 and ultimately chose to grant the right only to preference eligibles, it must also have intended … Veterans of the armed forces and certain of their close relatives qualify as "preference eligibles” regardless of the civil service classification of their positions. 5 U.S.C. § 2108 (3).

REXROAT v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 23, 2022

The Indiana Department of Correction allows individual correctional facilities to establish their own lighting standards. Id. at para. 7. The maintenance staff did not receive any requests by Mr. … Rexroat suffered a constitutional violation, the Court does not need to address the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See dkt. 35, pp. 10-12. IV.

Dodd v. Rambis

535 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 7, 1981

The daily administration of public education is clearly the responsibility of state and local school officials, Tinker v. … in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized

WADE v. IUSM

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2019

However, it is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … 1981, and Section 1983 claims based on IU’s sovereign immunity.

SIDWELL v. SEARLES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 14, 2023

As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Olson v. … So it is possible for a clearly written complaint to describe facts that, however unfortunate, do not amount to a legal wrong. That is exactly what has happened here.

Norwood Promotional Products, LLC v. Kustomkoozies, LLC

835 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 21, 2011

Its use in the “Further Acts” clause is clearly as a defined term, as evidenced by its capitalization. … Indeed, Norwood is clearly claiming in this lawsuit that Kustom’s use of its mark violated both agreements.