Case law

Walton v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2024

The application notes to the guidelines include a whole slew of factors which should be taken into consideration when determining whether a defendant qualifies for a decrease in offense levels. … As I’ve already mentioned, “[a] defendant's failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Carter v.

MATTHEW H THOMAS DAVIS v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2023

But then, contrary to the written agreement, the court qualified its statement by saying: The one exception is because you have a plea agreement that provides the court some discretion about where your sentence … App. 2008) (finding no valid waiver because the trial court clearly stated at the plea hearing that the defendant’s agreement allowed an appeal).

London Witte Group, LLC v. City of Marion

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2023

with respect to intentional wrongdoing by the Mayor amount to nothing more than unsupported innuendo” and “[s]imply put, the City failed to adduce any evidence that Mayor Seybold did anything that could qualify … differently, [t]he verdict will be reversed only when it is apparent from a review of the evidence that the amount of damages awarded by the jury is so small or so great as to clearly

Lace v. Fortis Plastics, LLC

295 F.R.D. 192 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 2013

Therefore, typicality is established with respect to the Proposed Class. *203 With respect to the Proposed Subclass, typicality is not yet established. … The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that claims predominantly requesting individual monetary awards do not belong in Rule 23(b)(2). Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2557-60 .

Bartole v. Hughes

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 2022

1915A, I 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 … Although Title II of the ADA provides that qualified individuals with disabilities may not “be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity,” 42 U.S.C

Paeplow v. Foley (In Re Paeplow)

119 B.R. 610 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1990

The defendants suggest that if they are not able to pursue a joint judgment against the Paeplows, the Paeplows will have immunized a substantial asset from their creditors through manipulation of the bankruptcy process. … As First Interstate Bank clearly had established its “claim” against the Paeplows’ property, the defendants submit that it had established an equitable or common law lien as to the property.

Gillespie v. GEICO General Insurance Co.

850 N.E.2d 913 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2006

Issue Gillespie raises various issues, [1] which we consolidate and restate as whether Gillespie sufficiently "identified" the owner or operator of the vehicle that caused an accident and left the scene such that it qualified … Appellant requests an order from the Court to publish its opinion handed *921 down on April 19, 2006, because it "establishes, modifies, or clarifies a rule of law." See Ind. Appellate Rule 65(A)(1).

Murphy v. McCann

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 16, 2022

He alleged that the conduct report should not have been issued because he was clearly not at fault and contested his placement in segregation. … 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

BRUCE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 22, 2023

The court finds Bruce has established that Yellow Cab and Shields acted as Norfolk Southern's agents under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, but he has not established they were agents of PTI under Indiana's agency … Because Norfolk Southern clearly appointed PTI as its agent and permitted PTI to appoint a "duly-approved subcontractor" to perform the services PTI 3 Norfolk Southern's control over Yellow Cab is barely discussed in

United States v. Franklin

546 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 1982

Other cases in the same vein clearly establish the deep and widespread judicial concern regarding this problem. See, U. S. v. Hall, 424 F.Supp. 508 (W.D.Okla.1975); U. S. v. Dioguardi, 492 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1974); U. … It is provided at 28 U.S.C. § 1863 (b)(8) that the district courts’ jury selection plans shall fix the time when names drawn from the qualified jury wheel shall be disclosed to parties and the public, but that the plan may

BLACKLEDGE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2024

In sum, the Plan clearly and explicitly requires plan participants to submit the ap- propriate claim forms to the Plan Administrator before taking any other action, including bringing a lawsuit in federal court, dkt. 51- … Plaintiffs' sole argument is that, "[b]ased on the UPS Defendants' own assertions and argument in their summary judgment brief, had Plaintiffs pursued those internal remedies, they clearly would not have been successful

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2021

To qualify as “conception,” the inventor must have “a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan he hopes to pursue.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. … So the evidence doesn’t clearly support August 20, 1998, September 18, 1998, or any particular earlier date as Days’ conception of the automatic leveling system.

Think Tank Software Development Corp., d/b/a Think Tank Networking Tech. Group and Think Tank Info. Systems v. Chester, Inc., Mike Heinhold, John Mario, Joel Parker, Thomas Guelinas, Jon Meyer, Daniel

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

Next, we concluded that Think Tank had established a dispute of material fact as to lost profits arising from Chester’s relationship with four specific customers. … To Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1404-PL-134 | April 14, 2015 Page 10 of 17  invoke this doctrine, the matters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible

William Groth v. Mike Pence, as Governor of the State of Indiana

67 N.E.3d 1104 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2017

Conclusion In sum, we reject the Governor’s claim that executive privilege renders his response to APRA requests immune from judicial review. … The recipients with clearly identifiable state-based email addresses were in the following twenty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska

Phillip Rumley, Sr. v. Laurie Ferguson

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2013

Mother claims that is so he and his new wife could qualify/buy a new house. Father says it[’]s because he paid her. Neither party can provide any such proof either way. … By its language, I.C. § 31-16-9-1 clearly applies only to the court entering the support order, not the court determining the arrearage. 6  In this case, the

Swami, Inc. v. Franklin Drywall II, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of Apr 29 2013, 8:27 am establishing the defense of res judicata … As such, this finding is not clearly erroneous.

CALLAHAN, DOUGLAS, PEACHER, WELLS v. MILLER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2021

In addition, section 1983 allows for recovery only by a "party injured" by a "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Armstrong v. … Daily, 786 F.3d 529, 553 (7th Cir. 2015) (a plaintiff must "establish one of the necessary elements of a constitutional tort: that the officer's act . . . caused any injury.") (internal quotation omitted).

MCCRAY v. DETAMORE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 2021

screening order, our court must dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if it is determined to be legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … We nonetheless provided Plaintiff an opportunity to draft and file an amended complaint that set out his claims more clearly and thus satisfied Rule 8. C.

Davidsen v. Buschert

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 16, 2023

Moreover, pursuant to Bekins’s regulations—more stringent than federal requirements—Westray was qualified and competent to drive. … Buschert was a licensed and qualified truck driver. There is no evidence in the record linking his prior driving violations to this accident.

Daugherty Speedway, Inc. v. Holcomb

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2021

The governmental action here was not a physical invasion of the property and so it was clearly not a physical taking. … Based on my finding that Daugherty has failed to state a claim against Defendants, I do not need to consider the issue of whether Defendants were protected by qualified immunity. Wos v. Sheahan, 57 F.