The intention of abandoning. 4 C. Rob. Adm. 216. Rhodes v. Whitehead, 27 Tex. 304, ...
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Court Cases
In this entry, the Court resolves a number of pending motions in the above-referenced action: 1) Kenro's request that the Court reconsider its decision in Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995), in which we held that federal courts have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over actions brought under the TCPA; 2) defendant Huntington National Bank's ("Huntington") motion to dismiss, based upon the alleged unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Telephone [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 95-1077-C-B/S
Don Barrett, Barrett Law office, PA, Lexington, MS, Victor Manuel Diaz, Jr., Podhurst Orseck Josefberg & Eaton, Miami, FL, Mike Eidson, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, Irwin B. Levin, Cohen & Malad, Indianapolis, IN, William E. Winingham, Wilson Kehoe & Winingham, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP-00-9373-C-B/S
Derek Joseph Baxter, Natacha Thys, Terrence P. Collingsworth, Washington, DC, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, CA, Barry A. Macey, Kimberly Denise Jeselskis, Macey Swanson and Allman, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: 1:06-cv-0627-DFH-JMS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' and Defendants' cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have brought their constitutionally-based lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment to challenge the recent enactment by the Indiana General Assembly requiring that registered voters present photo identification at the polls in order to vote, pursuant to Senate Enrolled Act No. 483, codified at Ind.Code §§ 3-5-2-10.5; 3-10-1-7.2; X-XX-X-XX; scattered sections of [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: l:05-CV-0634-SEB-VSS
Knox v. AC & S, INC. (1988)
Michael A. Bergin, Julia M. Blackwell, Locke Reynolds Boyd & Weisell, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants AC & S, Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Carey-Canada, Celotex, Fibreboard, Flintkote, GAF, HK Porter, Keene, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois, Pittsburgh Corning, Rockwool, T & N.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 85-911-C
Bank One, NA v. Leuellen (2005)Does 11 U.S.C. § 1329 flatly prohibit a bankruptcy court from allowing Chapter 13 debtors, acting in good faith and with court approval, to modify their confirmed Chapter 13 plan to surrender collateral to a secured creditor and to treat any deficiency as an unsecured claim? In more practical terms, should Chapter 13 debtors be required to lose their home because they can no longer pay for their car? Or may they instead, acting in good faith and with bankruptcy court approval, modify their [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: 4:04-cv-0037-DFH-WGH Bankruptcy No. 02-93219-BHL-13
This action, filed May 31, 1968, was tried by the Court on July 12-21, 1971. The Court has considered the voluminous testimony, the more than 200 exhibits, the post-trial briefs, has taken judicial notice of certain historical facts believed to be matters of common knowledge, and now files its findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of this memorandum. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 68-C-225
Eaton v. Onan Corp. (2000)Like many employers in recent years, defendant Onan Corporation converted its defined benefit retirement plan to a design known as a "cash balance" design. In this case, Onan employees and retirees have raised a claim of age discrimination that could result in a finding that cash balance plans are essentially per se illegal. The question is one of first impression in the courts: whether a cash balance defined benefit pension plan violates federal prohibitions on age discrimination in pension [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 97-0814-C-H/G
Robert N. Denham, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Winthrop A. Johns, Trial Atty., all of Washington, D. C., and Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: Civil Action No. 1587
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Norris (1992)
Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Co. ("Allstate") has moved for summary judgment in this action, which seeks a declaration that Allstate is not liable to pay for injuries sustained by defendant Jeana Duane when she was shot by Allstate's insured, defendant James E. Norris, on March 22, 1990. Jurisdiction and venue are proper. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Allstate's motion.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 91-427-C
In 1996, the Supreme Court held that lawsuits brought under state law against medical device manufacturers who submit "premarket notification" to the Food and Drug Administration are not preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) when liability is premised on theories that the device was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care in the device's design, manufacture, assembly, and sale. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 481, 494-95, 116 S.Ct. 2240, [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: Case No. 1:08-cv-0855-DFH-TAB
An essential element of each of Plaintiffs' claims against the three Defendants is that the Defendants' products (ibuprofen tablets) were in fact a cause of Plaintiff Manual Porter's injury, an acute renal failure. In their Motions for Summary Judgment, the Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs' evidence completely fails on the issue of causation. Plaintiffs are unable to overcome the challenge provided by Defendants' Motions. Based on the discussion of relevant legal principles, findings of fact [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 88-1192-C
Zehner v. Trigg (1997)This case presents several issues concerning a new federal statute, section 803(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Section 803(d), codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), is entitled "Limitation on Recovery." It consists of one sentence: "No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 93-1398-C-H/G
This putative class action challenges the lending practices of a federally chartered and regulated savings association. Named plaintiffs Brain D. Haehl and Vera Quinn assert that defendant Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. violated the anti-kickback and unearned fee provision of the federal Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, by charging and collecting "reconveyance" fees in connection with residential mortgages. In addition, plaintiffs allege state law claims for (1) [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: 4:02-CV-225-DFH
United States v. Hopper (1995)
Defendant Mark J. Hopper is charged in a Criminal Complaint with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228, referred to as the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (CSRA). That Act, effective October 22, 1992, provides:
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: EV95-0014M-01 R/H
On July 14, 1995, Kenro filed a Class Action Complaint in the Marion Superior Court alleging that Defendants Fax Daily, Inc. ("Fax Daily") and Huntington National Bank of Indiana d/b/a/ Huntington Banks ("Huntington") violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. On August 14, 1995, Huntington, with the consent of Fax Daily, removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), claiming that the action is within the original jurisdiction of [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 95-1077 C B/S
Hubert T. Willis, Middleton, Seelbach, Wolford, Willis & Cochran, Louisville, Ky., Richard C. O'Connor, Telford B. Orbison, Orbison, Rudy & O'Connor, New Albany, Ind., Thomas C. Galligan, Associate Gen. Counsel, Colgate-Palmolive Co., New York City, for Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: NA 66-C-20
United States v. Steele (1992)Defendant Robert D. Steele (Steele) moved to suppress evidence of a handgun seized from him on the evening of May 26, 1991 by Officer Roger Phillips (Phillips) of the Kokomo Police Department. Steele contends that he was seized and searched without a warrant or probable cause, and that the circumstances of the seizure did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to those prerequisites. The government propounds a single argument in opposition to Steele's motion. The government argues [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 91-105-CR
White v. Boston (1989)The appellant-debtors in this case, Richard and Judith White, seek to overturn a bankruptcy judge's decision to reopen their estate for further administration. The principal issues before this court are whether the trustee has standing to petition for reopening, and whether the action is barred by the Bankruptcy Code's statute of limitation. Because these are questions of law, they are subject to de novo review by this court on appeal. Matter of Evanston Motor Co., Inc., 735 F.2d 1029 (7th [...]
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 88-970-C, Bankruptcy No. IP 84-4830 R
Chavis v. Whitcomb (1969)This suit was tried before a three-judge court of the Southern District of Indiana, constituted under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 in that the complaint prays that certain statutes of the State of Indiana, having state-wide effect, be declared violative of the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The complaint seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and injunctive relief would necessarily accompany a judgment adverse to defendants.
Court: District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Docket: IP 69-C-23