Case law

HINEITI v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 9, 2021

Hineiti alleged that after he filed the September 2019 Charge, Lilly "continued to hire less qualified American and/or significantly younger individuals to positions to which it had not permitted [Mr. … Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has recognized that an employee's protected activity "does not immunize [him] from being subsequently disciplined or terminated for inappropriate workplace behavior." Kidwell v.

ANDRES v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2025

The Seventh Circuit also requires a showing of "as- certainability," meaning "that [the] class be defined . . . clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins v. … Ascertainability An ascertainable class is "defined clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins, 795 F.3d at 659.

Miller v. Rokita

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2023

immunity in their briefing, and the Court declines to raise these arguments on their behalf. … Her inability to be present during or even aware of a court proceeding clearly precludes finding Ms.

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Crabtree

485 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2006

Bang”), established that vitamin K was critical to expressing significant amounts of protein C. Crabtree Dep. at 414, 487. … Plutzky, must establish his co-inventorship by clear and convincing evidence. See id.

Lock v. Jenkins

634 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 1986

The most direct evidence of this “necessity” is the actual use of the transcript by counsel or by the court; however, it is clearly established in this circuit that the costs of a deposition may be taxed even if the witness … The plaintiffs did not challenge any of the district court’s findings of fact as clearly erroneous. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Harlow v. Hamlyn

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 2024

. § 1915A, the court must screen this pleading and dismiss it if it 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 from such … “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, that the balance of equities

State Farm v. Shuman, Admx.

175 Ind. App. 186 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1977

Shuman’s complaint, as amended, clearly withstands this test. In regard to the TR. 9(B) challenge, we observe first of all that failure to comply with the special pleading provisions of TR. 9(B) is not fatal. … We have assumed, arguendo, that these prior pleadings qualify as admissions. Shuman correctly points out that the pleading in Boots involved an express admission.

Shorter v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 18, 2021

As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012). … We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of §2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions.

MARTIN v. COLONIAL COIN LAUNDRY

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

"A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: '(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment … The dismissal order also noted that any amended complaint must address whether Plaintiff has a qualifying disability and whether his dog is necessary under the ADA. Id.

Wilson v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. EMPT. SEC. DIV.

373 N.E.2d 331 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1978

. *336 The Division cites cases which stand for the proposition that when an administrative procedure is established by statute, that procedure is the exclusive manner in which claims or disputes may be heard. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more *338 than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Jacob Lockridge v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2012

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law … An abuse of discretion occurs if “the decision is clearly 3 This conclusion is not to say that the evidence, which may qualify as depraved sexual instinct evidence, was not inadmissible on other grounds

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2013

And if you want a public defender, you qualify for one. If not you can represent yourself or hire your own attorney. What do you want to do? … relieve the judge of the need to explain and enforce basic rules of courtroom protocol or to assist the defendant in overcoming routine obstacles that stand in the way of the defendant's achievement of his own clearly

RE Phelon Co., Inc. v. Wabash, Inc.

640 F. Supp. 1383 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 9, 1986

Therefore, the statement made to the examiner was clearly incorrect. Mr. … In addition, the burden of proof to establish inequitable conduct before the PTO is on the party alleging the inequitable conduct.

Alejandro Gomez-Aviles v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2013

To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. … Any erroneously admitted hearsay evidence was cumulative of other evidence in the record, which clearly establishes the corpus delicti, and would amount to harmless error. See Lowery v.

Jennifer Fleming v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2014

Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 13 2014, 6:49 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … We will not reverse such a decision unless it is clearly contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case or misinterprets the law. Id.

Lee v. Walro (In re Lee)

567 B.R. 802 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2017

Accordingly, it is well established that the choice between the two remedies is left to the bankruptcy court’s discretion. Hebenstreit, 619 Fed.Appx. at 531 ; Veluchamy, 535 B.R. at 800 . … “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. at 574 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 .

Phillips v. State

441 N.E.2d 201 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1982

also informed Phillips that he would have the right to order into court evidence or witnesses in his favor, the right to require the State to prove the charge against him beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to have a qualified … Accordingly, we hold that the trial court committed no error by failing to state a reason for imposing upon Phillips an aggravated sentence besides clearly indicating in the record that the sentence was imposed pursuant to

Jay Unger v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2012

But unless he can testify as he’s qualified to make a judgment on that, then he’s not an expert here. Tr. p. 63-66. The trial judge then declined to qualify McShane as an expert. … An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind. 1999).

Developmental Services Alternatives, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

915 N.E.2d 169 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2009

I also did not find a failure to base it upon substantial and reliable evidence or that it was clearly erroneous on the basis of being contrary to applicable Federal and State law. … Id. at 1284 (footnote omitted) (emphases added). 19 *186 The rule barring post hoe rationalizations as announced in Scheid is now well established in Indiana. See, e.g., 20th Century Fiberglass v.

WALTON v. UPROVA CREDIT LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2024

However, Uprova Credit did stipulate "a limited waiver of its sovereign immunity only as set forth" in the agreement to arbitrate contained therein. … He alleges further that Defendants are not bona fide "arms of the Tribe," meaning they are not entitled to the protections of tribal sovereign immunity. Id. ¶ 39, 43. Mr.