Case law

WILLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2026

A claim is considered technically exhausted by procedural default if it was not raised in the state court and is now clearly procedurally barred under state law. See Woodford v. … Because Willis cannot establish that he lacks the ability to raise his claims in state post-conviction proceedings, he cannot establish this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the claims in the amended

Derek Dwane Hardy v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2012

For all of these reasons, we cannot conclude that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that the report does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … The claimed error must either make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. Id.

Geramy Ridley v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2012

to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Sep 17 2012, 9:01 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind. 2002) (“To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.

Andre v. Bendix Corp.

584 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 11, 1984

On appeal, the district court’s decision on promotion was upheld on the basis that the male who received the promotion had been implicitly found to be better qualified. … Franz’s conduct is most clearly demonstrated by his handwritten “Three Month Employee” evaluation dated March 6, 1979. As Franz admitted, there was nothing positive in it. (Facts 29, 30).

Undray D. Wilson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2012

DISCUSSION AND DECISION The standard of review in appeals from post-conviction negative judgments is well- established. … It therefore would not qualify for admission under Post–Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(4). We accordingly address only whether subsequently-discovered testimony by Quentin Abbott permits a new trial.

Hector Laguna v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 2014

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before Oct 15 2014, 10:13 am any court except for the purpose of establishing 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.’” Id. (quoting Greenboam, 766 N.E.2d at 1250).

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation

190 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2002

BF Goodrich-Icollan-tas, a case brought in Colombia,] it became necessary to dispense with expert testimony because there was no one in the country, other than parts technicians, qualified to discuss the quality, specifications … This factor is not as clearly in Defendants’ favor as it might appear to be at first blush. Ford and Firestone do not argue that foreign law applies to all issues in the cases.

Spillers v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

A claimant qualifies as disabled if he or she cannot perform such work. … But Pavlicek does not mark a departure from established jurisprudence.

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Bledsoe

441 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 2006

Finally, UCC asserts several tort counterclaims in its amended answer that are not clearly discussed in its response to the motion for summary judgment (See Response, p. 3)(listing UCC’s claims). … The bankruptcy court likely is waiting to see if any claim survives in this civil case that may qualify for nondischargeability in bankruptcy and simply has closed the adversary proceeding for statistical purposes due to

Zar Dyson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2014

In our view, this evidence is sufficient to establish the communication of a threat. … detainee while statutorily mandating credit time for a postsentence home detainee amounts to a violation of the detainee’s equal protection rights as well as his rights under the Indiana Constitution’s equal privileges and immunities

Strong v. Indiana Department of Correction

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

Despite Plaintiff’s conclusion to the contrary, the courts in Bennett, Brubaker, and Smith do not clearly establish that an attorney is automatically his client’s agent for purposes of service of process. … The inference alone, however, does not establish the necessary agency. See Lozanovski, 2017 WL 347451, at *4. With that said, the State Defendants have not clearly shown that Mr.

Wade v. Wellpoint, Inc.

892 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2012

To qualify as “unusual” or “suspicious,” the alleged insider trading must be “dramatically out of line with prior trading practices at times calculated to maximize the personal benefit from undisclosed inside information. … Without more, we are not equipped to make a finding that this agreement clearly constituted any admission of wrongdoing by Defendants. .

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 6, 2023

Before the Court will consider municipal fault, the Plaintiffs must establish that they suffered a deprivation of a federal right. First Midwest Bank Guardian of Estate of LaPorta v. … three circumstances exists: (1) the state law claims may not be re-filed because a statute of limitations has expired, (2) substantial judicial resources have been expended on the state claims, or (3) it is clearly

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Wiegand

808 N.E.2d 180 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 17, 2004

If the pleadings reveal that a claim is clearly exeluded under the policy, then no defense is required. Id. … The reliability of the scientific principles need not be established, but the trial court must be provided with enough information to proceed with a reasonable amount of confidence that the principles used to form the opinion

Board of Commissioners v. O'Connor

137 Ind. 622 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1893

Shirley, 84 Ind. 546 , "he simply stated more fully and clearly than he had previously done” one fact in connection with his cause of action. … “The court instructs you that these allegations are *631 material as pleaded, and if the truth thereof has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff can not recover therefor in this action.”

Crumpacker v. Civiletti

90 F.R.D. 326 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 6, 1981

Failure to Comply with Rule 8 It is well established that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint do no more than give notice of the nature of plaintiffs’ claims and the grounds upon which they rest. … The defendants raise several other grounds in support of their motions, including immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Noojin

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 2026

immunity will often apply to claims for damages. … However, because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, this question is best left to a later stage of the litigation.

BELL v. ARDAGH GROUP S.A.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2021

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … Sending notice to Bell's address on file was clearly "reasonably calculated" to reach her.

CONATSER v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 31, 2022

The only evidence pointed to by Claimant demonstrates that he had a limp and decreased strength and range of motion; that evidence is clearly insufficient to demonstrate that Claimant had an 'inability to ambulate effectively … Plaintiff contends that the ALJ relied heavily on Plaintiff's activities of daily living and ignored the qualified way Plaintiff completed most of these activities.

Schwartz

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 8, 2026

To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Farmer v. … A preliminary injunction is a “very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Orr v.