Case law

Graber v. MAD BREWER, INC.

773 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 24, 2011

However, without more, a plaintiffs subjective belief that she is more qualified than another employee does not establish pretext. See Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th Cir.2001). … Mad Brewer responds that they are not co-owners as Eric Brewer is the sole owner of Mad Brewer, but it does not clearly explain the roles that Neels and Stucky played. (Def.’s Reply 10.)

Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co.

645 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 14, 1986

The Union shall refer applicants to the Employer from their records of available and qualified members who are seeking employment. … Furthermore, the uncontroverted evidence in this case clearly exonerated the Union from any responsibility for participation in, or nexus to these claims of plaintiffs.

United States v. Oakley

731 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 1990

Clearly, the government may base a decision to conduct a warrant-less search of a prisoner’s body on legitimate concerns about that prisoner’s health. … Wolfish, I conclude that the government has met its burden of establishing the reasonableness of the search. Each of the four Wolfish factors are discussed below.

Knight v. Flakes

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 2022

Here, Knight has not clearly identified what First Amendment activity he engaged in, what deprivation each defendant caused, nor why it is plausible it was motivated by the First Amendment activity. … To the extent he is seeking monetary damages, the Indiana Department of Correction has sovereign immunity. Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001).

LACRUZE v. ZATECKY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2023

LaCruze's constitutional rights, the Court need not address the defendants' qualified immunity argument. Sparing v. … Village of Olympia Fields, 266 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2001) (the first step of a qualified immunity determination is whether the plaintiff has shown the violation of an actual constitutional right).

PARSLEY v. VANIHEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2025

United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana 3 The Court therefore does not address whether Defendants are entitled to qualified … immunity. 14 Distribution: All ECF-registered counsel of record via email CLARENCE BURTON

Gordon v. Southern Bells, Inc.

67 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 1999

In short, he was not entrusted with any of the necessary powers to qualify as a “supervisor” under Title VII. See Parkins, 163 F.3d at 1034 . … Clearly, the actions taken by Southern Bells that constituted “adverse actions,” occurring in the close temporal relationship to Gordon’s complaints are sufficient to establish a causal nexus and suffice to allow Gordon to

Tina R. Like Simmons v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2012

An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. … Simmons contends Officer Tharp did not qualify under Rule 701 because he lacked sufficient personal knowledge regarding the Nazi method of manufacturing methamphetamine.

MILLS v. SPEEDWAY POST OFFICE

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

Fekkes qualified immunity stripped for personal liability in this suit for a 1983 deprivation of rights defamation, intimidation, harassment, unlawful trespass & failure to provide public service under color of law … It is "well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules." Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008).

Lamb v. Cain

14 L.R.A. 518 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1891

It shall also have power to establish and manage any other organization or institution within the Church. “ See. 9. The general conference shall have power to establish a court of appeals. “ Sec. 10. … Flickinger, duly qualified and acting bishops of the church, publishing and proclaiming the result of the vote of the church, in accord with the provisions of the general conference of 1885, said result being as above set

Jewell D. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2017

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing FILED the defense of res judicata, collateral … An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt v.

Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

272 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 12, 1967

The Iowa Law Review Note, at page 797, states: “ * * * Clearly the sex-discrimination problem is a unique area,' requiring an approach which considers this factor. … If the job applied for requires this type of activity, the prospective employee, although qualified in every other respect, may be objected to because sex becomes an occupational qualification.” Id. at 796.

Mary E. Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

These cases establish the framework for the determination of whether we may review the merits of the motion to correct error once it is belatedly granted. … Clearly, the Act allows for recovery from criminal defendants and our Supreme Court has approved the allocation of fault to criminal defendants. I.C. § 34-51-2-10 (West, Westlaw current through 2011 1st Reg.

Orr v. Sevier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2019

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … A private company providing medical care in a prison performs a State function and can be held liable under the standard established in Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Coopman v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2020

“It is the petitioner’s burden to establish both of these points.” Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674, 683 (7th Cir. 2014). … The Petitioner also fails to establish an extraordinary circumstance.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of A.B.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

He is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry. Dr. Porter has been [A.B.]’s treating psychiatrist since November 2008. Dr. … Yohanna is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. 15. Dr.

ATKINS v. SHARPE

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

In addition, Section 144 requires a showing of actual bias (as opposed to an appearance of bias); "only personal animus or malice on the part of the judge can establish actual bias." Id. … Claims are factually frivolous when they are "clearly baseless," "fanciful," "fantastic," "delusional," "irrational," or "wholly incredible." Felton v.

Sater

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 2025

The burden to establish the admissibility of an expert's testimony by a preponderance of the evidence falls on its proponent. Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. … First, he does not clearly signal that his comments regarding Mr.

McCullough v. Union Traction Co.

206 Ind. 585 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1933

Brady was appointed receiver for the Union Traction Company of Indiana; that he qualified and took possession of the property of said Company on said day; finding number (21), found that prior to June 19, 1925, no suit was … Finding number (59) found that the defendant Company in the operation and conduct of said business ever after the establishment of rates by the said Public Service Commission, and establishment of said system of bookkeeping

Perry v. State

867 N.E.2d 638 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2007

And we acknowledge that "`an error in the instruction of the jury does not require reversal if the conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.'" … Having waived this issue, Perry must establish fundamental error to warrant reversal. I do not believe that the mistake in this case rises to that level.