Case law

SPEARS v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. D/B/A SUR LA TABLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 5, 2023

To receive relief under Rule 59(e), the moving party "must clearly establish (1) that the court committed manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment." Edgewood v. … Arguably, Spears is qualified for the position she previously held but the Court cannot ascertain that position from Spears' Second Amended Complaint.

MIMS v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2021

But a temporary neglect of an inmate's hygienic (or sanitary) needs is insufficient to establish a deprivation of a constitutional magnitude. See Williams v. … An amended complaint must have the words "Amended Complaint” on its front page, as well as this action's case number — 1:21-cv-01169-TWP-TAB - clearly shown.

Standard Mutual Insurance v. Kidd

136 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 16, 2001

Summary judgment is required only if it is clear that a plaintiff will be unable to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to establish his or her case. Celotex Corp. v. … Second, Indiana courts have established a number of guiding principles for interpreting language in insurance contracts.

Quanta Indemnity Co. v. Davis Homes, LLC

606 F. Supp. 2d 941 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2009

under Indiana law that insurers have the right to limit their coverage of risks as long as those limitations are clearly expressed and consistent with public policy. … However, under Indiana law, "the characterization of a claim as derivative or independent is irrelevant to whether the claim qualifies as a separate bodily injury under an insurance policy.” Allstate Ins. Co. v.

GEORGE v. INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in a failure to promote context, the plaintiff must show: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position sought; (3) he was rejected … does not constitute 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

Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Rose Seeding & Sodding, Inc.

764 F. Supp. 2d 1022 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 6, 2010

Lastly, the moving party *1028 need not positively disprove the nonmovant’s case; rather, it may prevail by establishing the lack of evidentiary support for that case. See Celotex Corp. v. … Any additional non-seed product that Rose Seeding was forced to purchase in order to remediate would qualify as consequential damages not recoverable under the contract.

Nova Records, Inc. v. Sendak

504 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 9, 1980

DISCUSSION Various grounds for relief asserted by the. plaintiffs clearly lack merit under the facts and circumstances of this case and may be disposed of in more or less summary fashion. … Like the Model Act, they require that inanimate objects, in order to qualify as paraphernalia and therefore be both subject to control and the basis for imposition of criminal penalties, be used, intended for use, designed

Ford v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

270 F. Supp. 3d 1059 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2017

Refusing to promote and/or transfer Ford to positions for which she was well-qualified; and c. … Her testimony clearly indicates that she did not believe the MCSO was required to continue to look for other positions for Ford once she was placed in a position that she could perform with the accommodations she was given

Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc.

245 F. Supp. 2d 976 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2003

Brief, p. 9, but none of her evidence qualifies as direct evidence. … Wyninger alleges that Joe Crouch "qualifies” as a supervisor. PI. Opp. Brief, p. 29.

Midwest Title Loans, Inc. v. Ripley

616 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 24, 2009

That transaction at that point was completed and it clearly occurred within Illinois where loan documents were signed and Midwest Title had tendered a loan payment in exchange for a promise to repay. 9 Pursuant to established … In addition, Midwest Title’s losses are not recoverable against the State because the 11th Amendment’s doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages against a state in federal court. Wynn v.

WARE v. WILLIAMS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 13, 2023

Standard 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 … Biggs, 43 F.4th 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2022) ("It is clearly established that '[a]n officer who is present and fails to intervene to prevent other law enforcement officers from infringing the constitutional rights of citizens

Buntin v. City of Indianapolis

838 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 7, 2011

Under the indirect method, a plaintiff must begin by establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … For the reasons delineated below, we conclude that Buntin cannot establish a prima facie case because she clearly was not meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.

673 F. Supp. 2d 718 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 1, 2009

These allegations in the Complaint do not suffice to establish the materiality of Defendants’ omissions. b. … To qualify as “strong” within the intendment of [the PSLRA], we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable — it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent

O'NEAL v. KRUEGER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 2020

Section 39-17-417 clearly prohibits conduct “relating to narcotic drugs.” 21 U.S.C. § 804(22). … Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.115 clearly prohibits conduct “relating to narcotic drugs.” 21 U.S.C. § 804(22).

BOYD v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2024

The Court must dis- miss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious; fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or seeks monetary damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. … Boyd must clearly identify the federal constitutional or statu- tory provision giving rise to his claims and/or the state of each defendant’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Jones v. City of Indianapolis

216 F.R.D. 440 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2003

Lilly, 185 F.R.D. 113, 115 (D.Mass.1999) (“The federal courts have recognized a qualified common-law privilege ... for law enforcement investigatory information.”). … For instance, any testimony sought from IPD personnel involved in the Cole investigation is clearly evaluative, and falls squarely within the investigatory privilege.

DENHAM v. AMCOR FLEXIBLE NORTH AMERICA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 8, 2024

The statute applies only to "employers"; it is well established that Title VII claims cannot be brought against individuals in their individual capacity. Williams v. … ADA Claim The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of a disability.

Schildmeier v. United States

171 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 1959

their joint and mutual and several last will, which remained unchanged by them, and was effective at decedent’s death as his own last will, and was duly admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Marion County, said widow qualifying … The court construes said will and the separable contract of the spouses embodied therein, and so finds, that no provisions of either the will, *336 or of such contract, establish any intention of the spouses, or had the legal

FREEMAN v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, INC.

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

However, that portion of Ocwen's brief does not clearly support its present argument. … The burden is on the discovery opponent to establish that the work-product doctrine protects the documents against discovery.

Tweedall v. Fritz

987 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 1997

The July 26, 1995 hearing, the written statement of reasons, the evidentiary hearing, and the grievance procedures clearly comport with due process standards. See Vukadinovich v. … For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie ease, the claim nonetheless fails.