Case law

Days Corporation v. Lippert Components Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 15, 2019

The qualifiers “generally,” “feeling at” and “preferably” support Days’ subjective reading of “reference level plane.” … Instead, Days’ proposal attempts to define how the reference value is pre-selected, but Days fails to establish why that must be further defined within the claim.

MARK v. SAUL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2019

Draegert’s (1) “ability to learn and apply rules and procedures, which are sometimes hard to understand,” (2) “ability to use reason and judgement in dealing with all kinds of people,” (3) “ability to think clearly … As explained above, under Parrott, these interpersonal and supervisory abilities qualify as skills to be considered for transferability. As to whether Ms.

Walls v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2022

Gupta could have explained his finding more clearly, such an interpretation of his opinion is not reasonable. Dr. … Plaintiff points to the “fairly-clearly disabling opinions” of Dr. Gupta and Dr. Wood.

ANDERSON v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 25, 2023

Henri A. contends that the ALJ relied on boilerplate language and did not provide any clearly articulated reasons to discredit all of Henri A.'s subjective statements. (Filing No. 13 at 14-15.) … Accordingly, Henri A. cannot establish error with the ALJ's relevant RFC finding.

LigTel Communications, Inc. v. BaiCells Technologies Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 21, 2020

Indeed, “[a]n equitable, interlocutory form of relief, a preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Valencia v. … Restaurants, schools, universities, hotels, bars, and many retail establishments and businesses have closed.

BURKART CROSSING APARTMENT PARTNERS, LLC v. BURKART OWNER, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2024

Burkart Crossing seeks judgment as a matter of law because the terms of the Agreement are clear and unambiguous and that the uncontroverted facts establish that Defendant committed a material breach when it neither terminated … knowledge, [Burkart Crossing] neither delivered to Purchaser the executed estoppel certificate from the City of Seymour nor the termination of the Comcast Agreement that Seller agreed to deliver"), then the Agreement clearly

ARMADILLO HOLDINGS, LLC v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 1, 2020

Margaretic qualified as an additional insured under the Travelers CGL Policy, but informed Liberty Mutual that, because the Lease did not contain a provision requiring Armadillo to provide Mr. … Such a claim would clearly be covered under the policy. If [Mr.

Levendouski v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 29, 2023

Disability Standard To qualify for DIB and SSI, a claimant must be “disabled” as defined under the Act. … L’s established limitations impacted the number of jobs in the national economy that she was able to perform.

XIRUM v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 8, 2024

The APA governs judicial review of agency actions and waives federal sovereign immunity in some circumstances to allow for equitable relief from agency action or inaction. See 5 U.S.C. § 702. … Plaintiffs argue the underlying statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(11)(A), clearly enumerates what ICE is authorized to pay for and, thus, provides meaningful standards against which the Court can judge ICE's actions.

GEORGETOWN DENTAL, LLC v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY THE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 17, 2021

Additionally, Defendants maintain that these "Coronavirus decisions" comport with "established, prevailing" interpretations of similar insurance policies outside of this pandemic context. … Because COVID-19 is not "specifically and clearly excluded" under the Policy, there is no exclusion for these pandemic- related losses.

Aearo Technologies LLC v. Parties Listed on Appendix A to the Complaint et a

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2022

Robins or other exceptions to section 362(a)(1), it has found that the non-debtor does not qualify for the exceptions. See Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. … The burden is on the movant—here the Aearo Plaintiffs—to clearly establish by a preponderance of the evidence the necessity for injunctive relief. See In re Gathering Rest., Inc., 79 B.R. 992, 1000 (Bankr. N.D.

Hawkins v. Angle

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

§ 1915A, the court must screen the amended 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 … Angle had knowledge of or presided over his prior hearings isn’t sufficient to establish bias. See Piggie v.

Larson v. Davidson Trucking Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 5, 2023

Gibson’s original pre-Rule 35 examination report [DE 26-3 at 32-55], and so that report was clearly prepared under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), not Rule 35. Dr. … Gibson’s report was a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report or a Rule 35 report, the court’s holding in that case actually suggests it could qualify as both.

United States of America v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2024

This issue with establishing the Intervenors’ contribution to the O&M plan is ultimately by the by. … All in all, further discovery is not clearly necessary to resolve this motion.

E.D. v. NOBLESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2022

Individual Capacity Claims "The ITCA governs lawsuits brought against political subdivisions and their employees, and it provides substantial immunity for conduct within the scope of the … Communicating with parents and students regarding allegations against the School is clearly an act within the scope of a public school administrator's employment, as is deciding whether to discipline a subordinate for work-related

ER Group, LLC. v. Great American Insurance Agency, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 27, 2024

In sum, the threadbare arguments before me do not establish a triable issue on Figg’s defense of impossibility of performance. … The bond does not specify that Indiana law governs to any suits brought to enforce its terms—but it does provide that no “suit or action” may be commenced by a qualifying “claimant” under the bond “other than in a court

DOTSON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2023

Dotson is not qualified to testify as to the cause of his back pain and nerve damage, see Pearson v. … But other portions of the record clearly show that, after Dr. Pierce reviewed the request, Mr. Dotson was approved only for an orthopedic consult.

Richwine v. Matuszak

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 19, 2023

The waivers establish that Plaintiffs waived many of their rights under Indiana law: 11. … Under Verizon and Hemmer, Plaintiffs’ claim clearly falls outside the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

United States of America v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2021

First, the Government Plaintiffs clearly considered the economic benefit to U.S. Steel in allowing the violations to occur. … The section additionally clearly spells out U.S. Steel’s responsibilities in the event of a wide variety of different violations that could potentially occur.

Indiana GRQ, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 22, 2024

The remarks must be “plainly unwarranted and clearly injurious.” Smith v. Hunt, 707 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2013). … IRG must establish that its costs were necessary and reasonable, U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. v.