Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,074 results
0.85s
District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 8, 2023
"Furthermore, the [July 25, 2019] Order clearly states the findings upon which [the provider] was to conduct supervised parenting time." Id. … This claim—like the § 1983 claim alleged in Count I—is clearly a direct challenge to Judge Chavis's court orders. Having concluded that all of Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVanHoosier v. Franciscan Alliance Inc
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2022
However, the undisputed evidence of record establishes that their compensation was set by established policies. … As discussed in detail above in the context of the Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim, the undisputed evidence establishes that Rynearson’s and the Plaintiff’s compensation were set by established policies.
Cited 0 timesUnknownIndiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 2020
Evidence Rule 702 provides: (a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise … “We cannot invade the province of the jury to decide the facts and cannot reverse unless the verdict is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Annee v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOtero v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2023
The proponent of expert testimony must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 924 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2019). … He has trained, supervised, and qualified hundreds of engineers, switchmen, and conductors.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDASILVA v. INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 2020
He contends that the Court instructed Plaintiffs to re-file the state law claims in state court, and that "[t]he inclusion of these claims clearly contravenes the Court's Order of March 2, 2020 and violates the spirit and … the Court decided in its discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the absence of 5 In its March 2, 2020 Order, the Court noted that Attorney General Hill would be entitled to immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 14, 2026
Mistakes of law, carelessness, and ignorance are not enough to qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). See Nelson, 657 F.3d at 590–91; Ben Sager, 560 F.2d at 809. … The record does not establish that fraud or misrepresentation induced Clyburn to dismiss his case with prejudice; rather, the alleged fraud and misrepresentation was a purely legal dispute between him and Lowe's.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 25, 2025
The problem here is that the limiting phrase “targeted prospective customer” does not clearly define the class of persons with whom contact is prohibited. … In so doing, the Seventh Circuit rejected the idea that the employees’ violations of restrictive covenants invariably qualify as irreparable harm to the former employer. Id. at 618.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBEYERS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2021
The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purposes. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). … Defendants argue that "Poland is not qualified to opine on roofing practices." (Filing No. 110 at 13.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownHartsock v. Indiana Dept of Corr
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 21, 2023
We held that, quite apart from the state of mind required to establish the underlying constitutional violation—in that case, a violation of due process—a plaintiff seeking to establish municipal liability … Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Spokeo, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBurgos v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 2021
Yet the Commissioner fails to recognize that the ALJ was not qualified to interpret this subsequent evidence either. Myles v. … Clearly, the ALJ never considered the limitations Plaintiff experienced while performing activities of daily living. Moss v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSparks v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 17, 2023
Likewise, the ALJ clearly considered Dr. Gupta’s opinion a medical opinion under the rules, and the Court is limited to the analysis presented by the ALJ. Phillips v. Astrue, 413 F. … Gupta’s report qualifies as a medical opinion. As previously discussed, Dr. Gupta conducted a consultative examination upon referral from the Disability Determination Bureau. Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 6, 2019
The Seventh Circuit held that the Department had not waived its sovereign immunity in state court, so the district court lacked “jurisdiction to compel the delivery of the [requested information] once … Further, the relevant documents may be covered by the law enforcement privilege, requiring a careful review and the balancing of multiple factors in considering whether to assert a qualified privilege.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2025
The grounds for denial of discharge under § 727(a) must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Peterson v. … On the 9 Kamaljit acknowledges that Sandhu Trans “was clearly run by [Amanpreet’s] father.” (Brief, p. 18.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 18, 2024
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. … Though Gray was not convicted of cocaine possession in Case No. 49G06-0804-FC-74432, this case remained pending at the time of sentencing, and the cocaine possession likely qualified as a probation violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAlbright v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2022
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not clearly defined what counts as a significant number of jobs. In Primm v. Saul, 789 F. … See Brace, 970 F.3d at 821-23 (remanding where VE testimony did not clearly establish the method used, and counsel objected based on Alaura).
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Cinergy Corp.
495 F. Supp. 2d 909 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 18, 2007
This amount clearly exceeds the average annual budget for maintenance expenses at Unit 2. … Clearly, then, the project was infrequent at the Unit.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 2019
The Court presumes this sentence is Lorrison’s attempt to argue that Phillips’ Complaint fails to establish one or more of the elements of his claim (whatever that may be). … The plaintiff has the burden to establish jurisdiction by competent proof. Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 1999).
Cited 0 timesUnknownPerry v. Bath & Body Works, LLC
993 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 28, 2014
If Perry establishes a prima facie case, then BBW must provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action under the burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Nevertheless, the Act was clearly *898 intended to provide such protection.
Cited 5 timesPublishedJohnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 26, 2022
Disability Standard To qualify for DIB, a claimant must be “disabled” as defined under the Act. … App’x 579, 583 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding that 15,000 jobs was significant and referencing precedent finding that even 1,400 jobs can qualify as significant). Although Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBen-Yisrayl f/k/a Peterson v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1998
To qualify as fundamental error, the defendant bears the burden of proving that “the error [was] a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.” Hart v. … First, the aggravating circumstances were clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna