Case law

RICHMOND JR. v. SAUL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 12, 2019

Clearly, Dr. … The Listings specify the criteria for qualifying impairments. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a)).

Ralev v. Robinson

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2021

Pursuant to Rule 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion … Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701, in turn, a lay witness may offer opinion testimony that is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to

FLORES v. SAUL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 16, 2019

ALJ Decision In determining whether Jesus qualified for benefits under the Act, the ALJ went through the five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). … Instead, the ALJ clearly indicates that his discretionary decision not to reopen Jesus’s prior claim is based on the Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate good cause.

Hollins v. Church Church Hittle + Antrim

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 7, 2023

The personal notice and opt-out requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) will also protect the interests of those who will qualify as class members. … A debt collector threatening legal action which it has no intention to pursue is clearly conduct prohibited by the FDCPA. Cuenca v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., No. 16-CV-05385, 2017 WL 1196922, at *2 (N.D. Ill.

Lowery v. Anderson

69 F. Supp. 2d 1078 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 1999

Kehm, 799 F.2d 354, 360-61 (7th Cir.1986) (witness in Bahamas was unavailable where United States had no extradition treaty and witness was unwilling to testify voluntarily without transactional immunity; Ohio v. … Appellate counsel concluded that he did not need a transcript of voir dire to establish the per se argument on that point.

Orange v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2022

Some of the items on Orange’s list of complaints may not qualify as an adverse employment action. … An aggrieved employee must at least report—clearly and directly—nonobvious policy violations troubling him so that supervisors may intervene.”

Dana Banks v. Evans Limestone Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 27, 2014

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 … Indiana Code section 22-3-4-11 provides that a Single Hearing Member “may . . . appoint a disinterested and duly qualified physician or surgeon to make any necessary medical examination of the employee and to testify in

Emery v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2021

Plaintiff established treatment with Dr. Renfroe as his new primary care physician. (Tr. 448). … The regulations expressly note that “Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability 17

In the Matter of the Finding of Contempt Against Tad Bohlsen During the Proceedings of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Dickson Street Investments, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2014

(f) If the person appointed under subsection (d) is an attorney and not a regular judge, and if that person consents to serve, the person shall be qualified as other judges. … Bohlsen seems to argue that all of this establishes that the trial court prejudged his guilt and that the contempt hearing was therefore a mere formality.

Eidenier v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2022

DISABILITY STANDARD To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that he suffers from a “disability,” which is defined as an inability to engage in any substantial gainful … this approach: [I]t does not take much knowledge of job markets to know that, while certain jobs may exist in large numbers (for example, a “pizza baker,” DOT 313.381-014, who “prepares and bakes pizza pies”), others clearly

GENESYS CLOUD SERVICES, INC. v. MORALES

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2019

If information does not meet these standards, then it does not qualify for protection under either statute. … In response, Genesys argues that the Second Amended Complaint clearly sets out a protectable interest in its goodwill and customer base and the development of its customer base.

Malloch v. Indiana Attorney General

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 3, 2024

He has not established grounds to set aside his procedural default. … As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause” to set aside a procedural default. Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012).

CHARLENE CESTRONI, TRUSTEE OF DUFFY ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC v. NORTHSTAR FUNDING PARTNERS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 28, 2023

Indiana caselaw clearly holds that fraud claims must be based on an affirmative misrepresentation or an omission. … Plaintiffs appear to argue that the illustration's use of the phrase "financial professional" implied that Parker was qualified to advise the Duffys regarding the Policy.

Heraeus Medical GMBH v. Biomet, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 10, 2021

Second, Petitioners must establish that they will use the requested discovery in a proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal. … (ii) qualified persons taking testimony . . . (iii) technical experts and their staff who are employed for purposes of this litigation . . .

TULLY v. OKESON

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

Plaintiffs are nine Indiana voters who do not expect to qualify to vote by mail in the general election under Indiana Code § 3-11-10-24. Dkt. 14 at 2 (citing declarations). … Discussion "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. . . . never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Id.

Antonio Rush v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 29, 2012

Kentucky, however, the United States Supreme Court qualified that principle to preclude the use of peremptory challenges to exclude venirepersons from a jury solely on the basis of race. 476 U.S 79 (1986), modified by Powers … Thus, we reverse only where the trial court‘s decision is clearly erroneous. Id.

Dodd v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 28, 2020

Dodd was denied the opportunity to present evidence, he must establish that the denial of the evidence resulted in actual prejudice rather than harmless error. Piggie, 342 F.3d at 666. … Dodd asks for appointment of counsel for the evidentiary hearing (ECF 37) and appointment of counsel for pretrial and trial matters (ECF 42), he has clearly shown he understood the facts in this case and was capable of

WILLIAMS v. ALLEN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 1, 2025

"[T]o establish prejudice, the prisoner must show not merely a substantial federal claim, such that the errors at trial created a possibility of prejudice, but rather that the constitutional violation worked to his actual … While no angle of the video footage clearly shows Mr. Williams himself sweeping the piece of paper to the cells, his proximity to the trafficked contraband provides some evidence to support Mr.

Antwan Rush v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2012

Thus, we reverse only where the trial court‟s decision is clearly erroneous. Id. … Rush‟s observations, though accurate, nonetheless fail to establish that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

PARTLOW v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2020

The record evidence establishes only that Mr. … Partlow’s De Quervain’s Tenosynovitis does not qualify as a condition that has “been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment.” See Gayton, 593 F.3d at 620. Instead, she argues that Mr.