Case law

Ben-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.

Govan v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2022

To Govan’s point, the forensic report was not admitted into evidence at trial and may technically qualify as “new evidence.” … 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.

KEMP v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 20, 2021

A party can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. … Gooding Rubber Co., 221 F.3d 1003, 1011 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Employees may not immunize improper behavior simply by [complaining about discrimination].

Carr v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 16, 2024

As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Id. … 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.

Taylor

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 7, 2026

To establish liability under 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.

Sheckles v. Warden

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

The court concluded that he did not establish deficient performance or prejudice. Id. … As a general rule, errors by post-conviction counsel do not qualify as cause to set aside a procedural default. Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012).

PARKER v. BROOKS LIFE SCIENCE, INC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 26, 2021

She will not follow policy and is not meeting the expectations clearly laid out for her. … In order to establish a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer was aware of her disability; and (3) the employer

Annie Oakley Enterprises Inc v. Kinsale Insurance Company

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

Sept. 2, 2014) (“a duty-to-indemnify claim is not ripe until liability has been established.”). And that is squarely where this case is positioned. … The Court explained further that to qualify as a third-party beneficiary: [I]t must clearly appear that it was the purpose or a purpose of the contract to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. v. SALIN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 21, 2020

Even if BMO Harris's Complaint is not preempted by Article 4A, Salin insists that each cause of action is defeated by the fact that BMO Harris, who was not the owner of the Funds, does not qualify as a "real party in … Clearly, these cases do not establish that the knowledge of the recipient is determinative of who is entitled to mistakenly transferred funds.

Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 19, 2020

He doesn’t qualify that answer except to say that the issue stems from “[d]esign—it’s design issues or manufacturing issues.” Id. … Yet more, the Smiths have adduced evidence establishing a triable issue on whether this unit was merchantable.

MILES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

Regardless, the ALJ clearly was aware that Cathy M. had reported symptoms that would conflict with her ability to sustain work. … The written decision does contain a couple of errors, including listing the call-out operator occupation even though that title would not qualify based on Cathy M.'s RFC.

TROTTER v. LOGAN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2024

"The law enforcement investigatory privilege is a qualified common law privilege protecting civil as well as criminal law enforcement investigatory files from civil discovery." … Contrary to the City's arguments, this factor clearly weighs in favor of disclosure, as only the City has access to the internal records and IA file contents.

Dimmett v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2024

prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Id. … “The statute clearly allows the presence of impurities or other substances to be considered in determining the weight of confiscated drugs, or in reaching the [statutory threshold weight].” Id.

SHEFFLER v. ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2024

Qualifying Class Members who do not opt-out will be bound by the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. … The proposed Settlement Agreement provides for the establishment of a non-reversionary Settlement Fund, none of which will revert to Defendants.

Rueth Development Company v. Power-Rueth & Associates, Donald S. Powers, Margret F. Powers

Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

“Unsworn statements and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper [Trial] Rule 56 evidence.” Logan, 728 N.E.2d at 858. … However, there is no corresponding common law rule establishing a fiduciary duty owed by limited partners.

McManus v. Saint Mary's College

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 2020

McManus Has Not Established that Saint Mary’s Violated Her FMLA Rights by Meeting with Her on August 4, 2017. Ms. … Communicate clearly, both orally and in writing, on the telephone, and in person. Work with others in a team environment.” ECF 25-1 at 157.

MBC GROUP, INC. v. CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 23, 2024

App. 1990) ("To be enforceable, it must clearly appear that it was the purpose or a purpose of the contract to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the third party."). … Under New York law, liability-limiting provisions are unenforceable only when, in contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing

Oo Aka v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2013

“To be qualified to testify, a child need not be a model witness, have an infallible memory, or refrain from making inconsistent statements.” Kien, 866 N.E.2d at 385. … An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Myers v. State, 718 N.E.2d 783, 789 (Ind. Ct.

Thomas

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2025

Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.”) (emphasis added)); see also Walker v. … In the prison context, written requests for interviews and/or grievances clearly constitute First Amendment protected activity. Id.; see also Gomez v.

Wolford v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 27, 2023

An individual’s ability to communicate normally during a short interaction does not mean the individual can communicate clearly over an entire workday. … The court cannot say that the administrative decision established a logical bridge. See Young v.