Case law

Maxey v. State

251 Ind. 645 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1969

There is authority to the effect that a third party can not waive another person's constitutional immunity against unreasonable search and seizures. C.f., Dalton v. State *650 (1952), 230 Ind. 626 , 105 N.E.2d 509 . … It is well-established in Indiana that the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed person in a manner likely to produce death is sufficient evidence *656 from which to conclude that malice existed. Sparks v.

Gillis v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 23, 2019

Clearly, the Commissioner’s argument is without merit. … A claimant must provide credible testimony and objective evidence to qualify for disability insurance benefits for allegations of disabling pain (Moothart v. Bowen, 934 F.2d 114, 117 (7th Cir. 1991)).

Turner v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2023

The Supreme Court has “long held that a plea does not qualify as intelligent unless a criminal defendant first receives ‘real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized … The Court recognized that “a judge’s ‘ordinary efforts at courtroom administration’ or docket management are ‘immune’ from claims of bias or partiality,” id. (citing United States v.

MORALES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2023

This conclusion, according to Morgan, constitutes an impermissible lay opinion that the ALJ was not qualified to assess. [Id. at 6.] … A commonsense reading of this portion of the ALJ's opinion does not support Morgan's argument because the opinion clearly shows that the ALJ was aware of and considered Morgan's medication treatment. See Fanta v.

FOX v. WEST-DENNING

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2020

Dkt. 77-4 at 1. 6 The signature is illegible, but the initials after the name clearly read “CMA.” See dkt. 1-1 at 17. … West-Denning “clearly stated” that she did not believe he had a chronic care condition and that he was “probably faking.” Dkt. 82-1 at 2. According to Mr.

SMITH v. MCDONOUGH

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

Smith qualify as adverse employment actions, are not as straight forward. … The evidence clearly shows, however, that Mr. Dinkins was not paid more than Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith testified that he and Mr. Dinkins did not have the same duties. [Compare Filing No. 35-6 (showing Mr.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., Sierra Club, and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2014

The Commission’s findings and conclusions on this issue are not clearly erroneous. Citizens Action Coalition, 894 N.E.2d at 1065-66. … In short, Interveners seek nullification of the Modified Agreed Settlement without establishing that the approval was contrary to law.

Motley v. Tractor Supply Co.

32 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 23, 1998

In contradiction to this report of Pompey’s remark about getting a gun, Motley clearly denied in October of 1994 that he had been physically threatened by anyone at TSC. ICRC Dep. at 227. … A distinctive physiognomy is not essential to qualify for protection. Id.

Elkins v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2024

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing, taking testimony from Elkins, who was represented by a qualified representative from his counsel’s law firm, and a vocational expert. (AR 44-76; see AR 89-90). … WL 5526631, at *3 (“Rather than discussing any of these facts showing limitations in . . . crouching, the ALJ instead focused on signs of improvement and progress during a time Plaintiff was recovering from surgery and clearly

Close Armstrong LLC v. Trunkline Gas Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2023

With an express grant of an easement, Indiana protects the right of the parties to state clearly its scope and future uses. … App. 1979) (“a limitation[] which would terminate an easement must be clearly established”).

UNITED STATES v. HEALTHNET, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2021

Count III alleges that Relator and HealthNet reached an oral settlement agreement whereby HealthNet would waive its claims for the Federally Qualified Health Center ("FQHC") wrap-around reimbursement. … if Relator and HealthNet had reached an oral agreement between the time the rest of the Robinson I claims were settled in September of 2016 and the time she sought to reopen Robinson I in June of 2019, she would have clearly

Sierra Club v. BP Products North America Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2021

Qualifying limitations include any “condition or requirement of a permit under part C of subchapter I (relating to significant deterioration of air quality)” § 7604(f)(3), or “any other standard, limitation, or schedule … Judge Martin appropriately recognized that the Seventh Circuit has very clearly “rejected this view,” and that the 0.010 lb/mmBtu limit is also actionable under section 7604(f)(4). [DE 29 at 7 (citing McEvoy v.

Stanley v. MSD OF SW ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOLS

628 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 2008

s IEP clearly was not reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit on M.C."); Pl. … As noted above in footnotes 55 and 57, both Kris Kirby and Cheryl Carter were qualified teachers. *969 4.

Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 23, 2020

As held in Antonio P, the ALJ was not qualified to second guess these medical professionals opinions and the ALJ should have explained how he considered Plaintiff’s medication. … Clearly, the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge between evidence and conclusion in addressing Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

Dustin B. Crabtree v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2020

These facts qualify the Defendant as one of the worst of the worst offenders who did “the most heinous thing a dad could do.” Appellant’s App. Vol. … [54] We look to the statutory range established for the classification of the offense. The jury found Crabtree guilty of child molesting, a Level 1 felony.

A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman

132 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2001

Both decisions left open the possibility, however, that additional evidence on the effects of such laws could establish an undue burden. … Notwithstanding the contention and controversy, some broad principles have been established by the Supreme Court.

Kohne-Gaier v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2020

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored records establishing Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome, and that the ALJ impermissibly cherry-picked evidence in reaching his conclusion that Plaintiff had not established such an … , she might well have reached a different conclusion”).4 This is especially true where, as discussed below, the numbers of jobs that could be performed by Plaintiff in the national economy was, at the very least, not clearly

Greene

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 1, 2026

Greene purports to partially admit a fact advanced by Trelleborg, but provides no explanation qualifying her admission, (id. ¶ 62 (“[p]artially admit[ing]” a fact with no additional explanation)), leaves a blank space … But it is her argument for Trelleborg’s liability as an employer that most clearly falls flat. Trelleborg argues that Ms.

Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc. v. Crown Point, Indiana City of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2024

Pinnacle sought a variance requesting that the City not enforce the ordinance so long as residents at the property qualified as disabled, as defined by the Fair Housing Act, and that the City not enforce the ordinance so … The parties do not appear to dispute that the residents at the home suffer from substance abuse disorder (Crown Point certainly doesn’t argue to the contrary), and thus qualify as handicapped under the Act.

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 20, 2023

STANDARD A witness may testify in the form of an expert opinion when (1) the witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, expertise, training, or education;” (2) the testimony … Still, 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).