Case law

ACCENT CONSULTING GROUP, INCORPORATED v. GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2024

Stephens points to the fact that Great American "admits" that the Consumer Complaint "did not qualify as a claim under the [P]olicy." [Filing No. 94 at 12.] Ms. … Those proceedings clearly amounted to the Policy's definition of "Disciplinary Action." Thus, far from breaching its duty to defend, Great American had no duty to defend Ms.

KINNICK v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 4, 2021

Nor does stress by itself with no physical manifestation and no qualified medical diagnosis amount to a concrete harm." (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). … Kinnick argues that the procedures described in Med-1's manual [Filing No. 65-1] should be ignored because it "was clearly dated after Med-1 sent Mr. Kinnick the letter at issue [on April 25, 2019.]"

Morrison v. Fifth Third Bank

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 16, 2021

She expresses concern that she did not get the position even though she felt she was qualified for it. Id. … (ECF No. 48-2), p. 12 (internal page number 199). 5 Morrison clearly misspoke here.

Krontz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 3, 2021

He noted that Plaintiff “was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2004 and carries a formal diagnosis of AIDS which means his immune system has suffered significant distortion. … Plaintiff notes that the ALJ clearly acknowledged additional impairment resulting in additional limitation beyond that acknowledged by the non-examining physicians in light of her limitation to provide for a sit/stand option

ADVANCED MAGNESIUM ALLOYS CORPORATION v. DERY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2023

Wogen's actions clearly violated the intent of that command. … Because conditional penalties are specifically designed to compel the doing of some act, they are coercive and therefore qualify as civil contempt.

Dameron v. City of Scottsburg, Ind.

36 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 18, 1998

I.The City’s Duty to Briana To establish liability for negligence, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty to conform its conduct to a standard of care arising from its … The second Mullin factor, that the City must have known that inaction could lead to harm, is clearly satisfied here.

MercAsia USA, LTD v. Zhu

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 24, 2022

The new motion must explain with required specificity why the documents qualify for under-seal filing given the Seventh Circuit’s standards. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Harrison, 2014 WL 127604, at *3 (S.D. Ind. … First, MercAsia clearly alleges that Mr.

Hammond City of v. ASARCO Master Inc

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

A creditor qualifies as “reasonably ascertainable” if the debtor could uncover the creditor's claim and identity using “reasonably diligent efforts.” Id. at 778. … Affirming the district court, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court’s finding of constructive knowledge was not “clearly erroneous” and that “[o]ur national environmental policy does not permit a commercial

Jones v. Warden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 11, 2021

As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012). … 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.

BOWLING v. NETFLIX, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 6, 2023

The Court agrees that the information, which is not part of the pleadings, is clearly outside the scope of Rule 12(c). More importantly, the Court does not rely on those documents in reaching its decision. … Because, as discussed above, the Plaintiffs cannot establish conversion, they necessarily cannot establish theft either. Therefore, Plaintiffs' theft claim is not plausible on its face.

Barringer v. GE Aviation Systems North America LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2024

This holistic approach is clearly applied by Barringer, as he cites Johnson, 892 F.3d at 894 (stating “[e]vidence must be considered as a whole, rather than asking whether any particular piece of evidence proves the case … Constructive Discharge As noted above, a constructive discharge can also qualify as an adverse employment action. Wince, 66 F.4th at 1043.

CRITTENDEN v. IPPELL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 16, 2020

Crittenden's foot condition is not an objectively serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment, dkt. 152 at 18, but as defendants concede, there is no specific Seventh Circuit case law "that clearly identifies whether … Crittenden may have believed he should have qualified for a bottom bunk pass because of his condition of flat feet, but this provides no evidence that Wexford maintained an unconstitutional policy or widespread practice

Benchik v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

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

[Benchik Dep. 55:3-58:13; Inman Dep. 27:7-30:19]. 4 Although the appraisal “requested” this further extension of the working test period, no party designated any facts clearly establishing that … Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 9 Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing he (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) was qualified for the job, (3) suffered an adverse employment

RASHAD v. USF HOLLAND LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 2024

Instead, Defendants maintain the burden of proof and they must demonstrate that Rashad's lawsuit is untimely by establishing the date of receipt for the notice of right to sue. See Prince v. … The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual on the basis of a disability." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

FOSTER v. SAUL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 9, 2019

Once step four is satisfied, the burden shifts to the SSA to establish that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy.” Knight v. … Given the paucity of the evidence before the ALJ relevant to this issue and the lack of evidence clearly contradicting the additional evidence offered by Nelson before the Appeals Council, that evidence, if considered

Gump v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 9, 2020

Moreover, the Seventh Circuit reiterated that “[a]n ALJ may not conclude, without medical input, that a claimant’s most recent MRI results are ‘consistent’ with the ALJ’s conclusions about her impairments” and “ALJ was not qualified … As Plaintiff contends, the record clearly supports at least some difficulty with Plaintiff’s hands.

GRIFFITH v. GEO GROUP, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 4, 2022

The document does not clearly evidence that Nurse Bergeson denied Mr. Griffith's request related to his shoulders. … Bowen's notes clearly indicate that such step was only "possible," and was not a "definitive" order. Though Mr.

Lutz v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

He was confused sometimes, felt depressed, and did not think clearly (Tr. 226). … The rationale must follow an orderly pattern and show clearly how specific evidence leads to a conclusion.” SSR 82-62.

McGrath v. Dunecrest Condominium Association

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 23, 2024

The parties do not dispute the reasonableness of the McGraths’ proposed accommodation or that Plaintiffs Tim McGrath and Martin McGrath qualify as handicapped under the FHA because they are autistic. … Here, the McGraths’ only relevant argument is that voting Association member Michael Hernandez’s “reliance on a clearly inapplicable bylaw creates an inference that his claimed reliance thereon was pretext and, combined

Timothy J. Taylor v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

Clearly, the trial court would have been amenable to sustaining an objection if one had been made and offered to admonish the jury. … To qualify as fundamental error, an error must be a clear and substantial blatant violation of basic and elementary principles which renders the trial unfair to the defendant. Townsend v.