Case law

Seegers v. Jasper County Indiana

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2021

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations defense qualifies as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ennenga v. … or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

1st Source Bank v. Village of Stevensville

947 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 2013

Peterson asserted that the Village could borrow up to $3,000,000 pursuant to MCL § 69.22 and that the Village was a “qualified small issuer” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 265 . (Id.) … provides the clearest restatement of the rule against applying the doctrine of estoppel in cases where a municipal corporation exercises its authority in contravention of statutory requirements: We do observe ... that the long established

Harrison v. City of Fort Wayne

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 8, 2020

At least as to Harrison’s § 1983 claims, the letter is clearly not relevant. See Hill v. City of Chi., No. 06 C 6772, 2011 WL 3205304, at *3 (N.D. Ill. … July 28, 2011) (“It is well-settled that violations of the Chicago Police Department Rules and Regulations cannot establish proof that a defendant violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (citing Thompson v.

DAVIS v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a GEICO

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

She is clearly upset and very afraid to say something about [Mr. Jordan]. She feels as if she is in trouble with her [FMLA leave].” Mr. Swayne made a note that same day saying that he talked with Ms. … After the period of qualified leave expires and the employee returns to work, she is entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to an equivalent position with the same benefits and terms of employment.”

DURHAM v. United States

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 25, 2019

But Fair's own internal accounting could not be trusted; the evidence established widespread manipulation of its financial information. … Tompkins should have used, the court wrote The defendants urged the court to instruct the jury that "[s]imply continuing to hold a security does not qualify" as a purchase or sale

Peak v. State

240 Ind. 334 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1960

Every statement that we have been able to find relating to the use of an assumed or fictitious name by a person in taking title to property is always qualified by the provision that it cannot be done for the purpose of fraud … To keep the issue clearly before us it must be kept in mind that appellant herein was charged by indictment with falsely attesting an acknowledgment of a deed under § 10-3603, supra, and that this is not an action against

MCCRACKEN v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2021

The Court need not delve too far into IDOC's prevention and correction methods because there is clearly a dispute as to whether IDOC can succeed on the second requirement. … A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII by establishing that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was meeting the employer's legitimate employment expectations

Hill v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 2022

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action 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 … “Incarcerated people have a clearly established right to be free from physical harm inflicted by others in the institution.” Kemp v. Fulton Cty., 27 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Farmer v.

Rodriguez

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2025

the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … ineffective in his presentation of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, presumably to excuse the procedural default of claim three.2 As a general rule, errors by post-conviction counsel do not qualify

BECKNER v. MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2023

Customer agrees to provide competent and qualified signal person to direct Maxim's equipment operators. . . . … Pugh; the contract between Commercial Air and Maxim clearly stated that Mr. Pugh was an employee of Commercial Air for all purposes other than payment of wages, worker's compensation, and benefits and that Mr.

ArrMaz Products Inc v. Rieth-Riley Construction Co Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2026

Decisions enforcing the court’s local patent rules will be affirmed unless it is “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; based on erroneous conclusions of law; clearly erroneous; or unsupported by any evidence.” … The claim charts must contain the following contentions: (1) how and under what statutory basis the item qualifies as prior art; (2) whether the prior art item anticipates or renders each allegedly invalid claim obvious

In Re Greenwood Point, LP

445 B.R. 885 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 4, 2011

First, clearly there is no agreement in place between Roberts and TBC that Roberts would not be paid his share of an earned commission if the Debtor failed to pay TBC its commission under the Management Agreement. … artificially impaired” the class by choosing to pay the interest on the Secured Tax Claim over three months. “ ‘Artificial’ impairment occurs when a plan imposes an insignificant or de minim-is impairment on a class of claims to qualify

Williams v. State

669 N.E.2d 1372 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

authority to manage and control proceedings generally, and to supervise voir dire in particular, and to remain impartial and eschew advocacy, (#) the cherished role of the peremptory challenge in assuring the selection of a qualified … The defense indicated that it sought to strike prospective juror Brandys, a white female, because she didn't "understand[ ] that the defendant has the absolute right not to testify" and that "[slhe clearly indicated ... in

Riehle v. State

823 N.E.2d 287 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2005

A trial court abuses its discretion when its evidentiary ruling is clearly against the logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. at 1053-54 . Moreover, the fundamental error doctrine is extremely narrow. Howard v. … To qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Id.

SHADOAN v. United States

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

P. 12(b)(1), on the grounds that the amended complaint is barred by sovereign immunity, as there are jurisdictional deficiencies for the 2014 and 2016 tax years that deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. … This clearly falls within the restrictions outlined in § 6402(g).

Dixon v. Select Portfolio Servicing

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2025

Supp. 3d 234, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (dismissing TILA claim based on open-end agreement regulation because “[p]laintiff’s mortgage is clearly a closed-end credit transaction”); Nelson v. … RESPA requires that creditors respond to borrowers’ Qualified Written Requests (“QWRs”). 12 1 Under open-end agreements, the parties contemplate repeated transactions and charges may be computed from time to time on

Richard B.E. Spoon v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 28, 2013

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before May 28 2013, 9:30 am any court except for the purpose of establishing … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied.

Curtis E. Jones v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2012

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 of the case. … It is well-settled that a finger qualifies as an “object” for the purposes of deviate sexual conduct. See Harwood v. State, 555 N.E.2d 513, 515 (Ind. Ct.

Sizyuk v. Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 15, 2023

Second, the Plaintiff argues the explanation that she had not established her independence from Dr. Hassanein was pretextual because she had, in fact, established that independence. … 1983 provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of [state law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Alexander A. Lopez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2012

We will reverse a trial court’s decision only if it clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. … In order to qualify as fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Mitchell v.