Case law

Kyle E. Bowers v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2012

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of FILED Jul 03 2012, 9:29 am establishing … The Court thus concluded that the defendant’s crimes did not qualify as an episode of criminal conduct within the meaning of Indiana 4  Code section 35-50-1-2(b

QUALITY LEASING CO INC Inc v. INTERNATIONAL METALS LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2020

However, the Court notes that: [I]t is also well established that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules. … "For immunity from liability to exist based on absolute privilege, the statement in question must be 'relevant and pertinent to the litigation or bear some relation thereto.'" Id. at 280 (quoting Estate of Mayer v.

VAN GORP v. LILLY USA, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 24, 2023

Oct. 6, 2010) ("The Seventh Circuit has clearly held that a party who fails to respond to points made … concedes those points."). … Co., 675 F.3d 709, 717 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The plaintiff must . . . establish causation by 'offer[ing] statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of

KILLION v. PATEL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 2025

The purpose is to spare very small firms from the potentially crushing expense of mastering the intricacies of the antidiscrimination laws, establishing procedures to assure compliance, and defending against suits when … dismissal should have been without prejudice, however, because 'a dismissal with prejudice is a merits disposition,' and a court cannot enter judgment on the merits when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction or sovereign immunity

Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

176 Ind. 542 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1911

A. 787, that the second clause of the fourth subdivision of the act only qualifies the liability expressed in such clause. 2. The second clause of subdivision four is a declaration of the common-law liability. … Foland, supra, if a railroad employe in constructing a bridge is injured, and the railway is liable, and an employe of a private person doing the same work is injured, and there is no liability, the statute would clearly

McMahan v. Wilson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 14, 2025

§ 1915A, the court must screen the complaint 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 … However, he does not clearly identify the individuals to whom he directed his requests for mental health treatment, nor does he sue any member of the medical staff at the prison.

Kurt Gregory v. Carol Gregory

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2012

Kurt has not established that Carol willfully disobeyed the MSA or PTG on this point. … Namely, it is an open-ended provision that clearly contemplates the submission of any future disagreements between the parties regarding their children to arbitration.

OLSON

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 30, 2025

Respondents argue that § 1225(b)(2) pertains to Petitioner because he is "seeking admission" and is an "applicant for admission" who is "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted." … See Castañon-Nava, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9 ("And while a noncitizen arrested in the Midwest might qualify as 'an alien present in the United States who had not been admitted,' § 1225(a)(1), the mandatory detention provision

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. United States

412 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 1976

We are of the view that the record before us clearly demonstrates a failure to give that careful consideration to the petition of the employees for the decertification election.” 43 See also NLRB v. … force with respect to such carrier a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such operations . . .” 49 U.S.C. § 307 (a) provides in part: “a certificate shall be issued to any qualified

Dugan v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

“The Seventh Circuit [Court of Appeals] has not affirmatively established the threshold for 6 the number of jobs in the national economy that qualifies … Clearly not.

Houghton v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

A claimant qualifies as disabled if he or she cannot perform such work. … Such a finding would have clearly changed the outcome of his case by changing the ultimate determination in regard to Mr.

In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

662 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2009

Ford Motor Credit Co., 162 Ga.App. 312 , 290 S.E.2d 487 (1982), the court of appeals cited the language FedEx notes: “ ‘Where the contract of employment clearly denominates the other party as an independent contractor, that … contractor relationship the agreement claims to establish.

Moore v. University of Notre Dame

22 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 1998

The evidence presented at trial establishes that Moore expressed a desire to work two more years and then retire. … B.). 11 Rates awarded in similar cases are clearly evidence of an attorney’s market rate. People Who Care, 90 F.3d 1307 , 1312; accord Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.1995).

Hustedt v. Hunter Warfield Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 24, 2022

Persinger is immediately distinguishable because such allegations are clearly absent here. … After admissions in Persinger’s deposition, the Seventh Circuit was left with “dignitary harm as the only allegation in Persinger’s complaint that might qualify as a concrete injury.” Id.

Sawaska v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 15, 2020

Disability insurance benefits are available only to those individuals who can establish “disability” under the terms of the Social Security Act. … The Commissioner claims that the VE clearly believed that the specific jobs he identified did not require standing more thansix hours per day.

In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products

155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 2001

This case clearly is factually distinguishable from Shutts . … In that case, the court accepted as true the plaintiff's allegation that he "has suffered a direct injury to his immune system” as a result of exposure to toxic substances.

Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co.

16 Ind. App. 271 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1896

He ob *305 tained comparative protection for himself and his property, and immunity from disturbance during the passage. These facts afford no solution of the question. … In the prevailing opinion it is not clearly stated whether the company is liable because it was a duty, owing by the company to its patrons to accept the effects and upon demand deliver them saf ely, or whether the company

John Haegert v. University of Evansville

977 N.E.2d 924 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2012

It was qualified by prohibiting entry “unless accompanied by security staff,” (Supp. … To the extent Haegert is asserting that his anecdotal file was used against him to establish a pattern of misconduct before the FPAC, we do not see the evidence the same way.

EDGE v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE SALEM COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 1, 2019

She alleges the decision to cancel her contract was arbitrary and capricious; an abuse of discretion; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; and unsupported by substantial evidence … The Indiana General Assembly clearly understood that this statute would be preempted by federal law if it attempted to restrict a litigant’s ability to file a federal suit.

Brian McGill v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2013

Furthermore, even if McGill would have established that the deputy prosecutor’s statement amounted to improper vouching, McGill has failed to establish that the deputy prosecutor’s statement placed him in a position of … As a result, McGill qualifies as a habitual offender. McGill’s claim to the contrary essentially amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.