James Ellsworth Noland

The case involved coin dealers who stored over $300,000 worth of rare coins in a safe deposit box at the Hyatt Regency-Indianapolis while attending a numismatic convention; the coins were later stolen from the box. The plaintiffs sued the hotel for the loss, claiming a bailment relationship and breach of duty of care. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that the signed Safe Deposit Box Record expressly limited the hotel's obligations to ordinary care only for securities, jewelry, and valuable papers, stated that no bailment was created, and prohibited use of the box for money or other items. The court further held that the undisputed facts did not support the plaintiffs' estoppel argument based on the hotel's role as the convention's base hotel. Judgment was entered for the defendant with no recovery for the plaintiffs.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an Indiana inmate who filed a pro se civil rights action under section 1983 against federal officials, state agencies, police departments, and other individuals, alleging that pending and concluded criminal prosecutions against him resulted from personal vindictiveness by his federal parole officer. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the various defendants. It granted the motions to dismiss for most defendants on grounds including Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of personal involvement in the alleged conduct, and failure to state a viable claim. The court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants because the existence of probable cause for the plaintiff's arrest and charges defeated his claims for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The entire action was dismissed.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this declaratory judgment action, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sought a ruling that its underinsured motorist coverage policies issued to Indiana resident Robert Conway did not apply to injuries he sustained in a Kentucky car accident when his stalled vehicle was rear-ended by another Indiana driver, Jill Lantz. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. It held that Lantz's policy limits were not less than Conway's underinsured motorist limits, so Lantz's vehicle did not qualify as underinsured under the policy language and Indiana Code § 27-7-5-4(b). The court also ruled that the policies' anti-stacking provisions barred combining coverage from Conway's two separate policies, consistent with Indiana Code § 27-7-5-5(a).

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns whether periodic payments from a structured personal injury settlement annuity, received by debtor Jonathon Striegel after a 1984 gunshot wound, constitute property of his bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and whether they qualify for exemption under Indiana Code 27-2-5-1. The bankruptcy court had ruled that the future payment stream was not estate property because the debtor lacked ownership interests in the annuity and that it was alternatively exempt as akin to future earnings. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the debtor possessed a pre-petition legal interest in the payments (characterized as a chose in action) that became part of the estate, that the arrangement was not a spendthrift trust excluding it from the estate, and that the cited Indiana exemption statute did not apply. The matter was remanded for the bankruptcy court to determine the extent to which the payments represent exempt wages or other categories under applicable law.

propertyprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Family Mutual Insurance Company against its insured's employee, Jeffrey L. Lane, and others, seeking a ruling that the employer's liability policy provides no coverage for Lane's fight with John Taylor and imposes no duty to defend Lane in the resulting tort suit. The district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that although the incident occurred shortly after Lane clocked out on Arby's premises and began with Lane telling Taylor the restaurant was closed, Lane left the building of his own volition to engage in a personal fight unrelated to any employment duties, so the acts fell outside the policy's coverage for acts within the scope of employment.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved Indiana's Medicaid eligibility rules for institutionalized recipients and the state's practice of 'deeming' income and resources from non-institutionalized spouses as available to them. The court reviewed compliance with its 1979 judgment, which required individualized factual findings of a spouse's actual needs instead of a fixed formula, and considered whether that judgment should be updated. The court found that the state had not fully complied with the resources provisions of the prior order but held that changes in federal law, including the Social Security Act and related Supreme Court rulings, required modification of the permanent injunction. The analysis focused on statutory requirements for determining what resources are reasonably available without addressing constitutional claims, which had been abandoned.

healthcarefederal power

The case concerned a dispute over possession of four sixth-century Byzantine mosaics that had been affixed to a church in northern Cyprus until they were removed during the Turkish military occupation in the late 1970s. The Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus sued Peg Goldberg and her art gallery, who had purchased the mosaics in Switzerland, claiming the items were stolen and seeking their return. The court awarded possession to the Church of Cyprus. It held that Indiana law governed because that state had the most significant relationship to the case, and under Indiana law a thief acquires no title that can be passed to subsequent purchasers; alternatively, under Swiss law Goldberg did not qualify as a good-faith purchaser given the suspicious circumstances of the sale and her failure to make reasonable inquiries.

property

The case involved a plaintiff who was injured in a roadside altercation with three off-duty Indiana State Police officers following a highway encounter that began with street racing. The plaintiff brought federal claims, including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations arising from the officers' conduct, along with pendent state-law claims such as battery. The court found that the defendants were acting entirely in their personal capacities at the time, as they were on vacation, in civilian clothes, using an unmarked undercover vehicle, and never identified themselves or exercised any police authority. Because the defendants were not acting under color of state law, the federal claims failed, leading to judgment for the defendants on those claims; the court then transferred the remaining state claims to Indiana state court under principles of pendent jurisdiction and state savings statutes.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The plaintiffs, several Midwestern egg processors, sued defendant Rose Acre Farms under Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, alleging that Rose Acre engaged in illegal price discrimination through predatory pricing of eggs. After a jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs awarding over $9 million in damages (to be trebled), the district court granted Rose Acre's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternatively for a new trial, while denying the plaintiffs' related motion on the counterclaim. The court concluded that Rose Acre's pricing differences did not cause competitive injury, as required under the Act, noting that the plaintiffs as a group had experienced increased revenues and sales during the relevant period rather than harm to competition. The decision emphasized analyzing market effects on competition overall instead of impacts on individual competitors and found insufficient evidence linking any price variations to antitrust injury.

business & regulatory

The case involved the State of Indiana challenging a federal disallowance of over $112,000 in Medicaid grant funds imposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the state's failure to comply with utilization control requirements under section 1903(g) of the Social Security Act, specifically regarding timely certification, recertification, and patient care plans in nursing facilities. The court affirmed the Secretary's decision after reviewing the administrative record and upheld the penalty following a validation survey that identified deficiencies in ten Indiana nursing homes. The core reasoning was that the statute mandates reductions in federal funding for any failure to meet the requirements on an 'each case' basis, the Secretary's interpretations are entitled to substantial deference given the Act's complexity, and there was no evidence that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or procedurally flawed. The court also rejected claims of bias or inadequate surveys, noting that the agency had already adjusted the penalty where compliance was shown.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved peace organizations seeking to paint non-permanent human silhouettes on public sidewalks in Indianapolis to commemorate the Hiroshima bombing, and they sued the city to prevent interference or prosecution, claiming First Amendment protection. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the threat of legal action was too uncertain and speculative to create a justiciable controversy. The court reasoned that unlike cases with specific threats of arrest, here the plaintiffs' fears were subjective and not immediate, and it declined to issue an advisory opinion on the merits of the free speech claim versus the city's property interests.

free speechprocedureproperty

The case Jenner v. Shepherd involved plaintiffs who rented a mobile home from defendants and alleged that the defendants violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by detaining their personal property pursuant to Indiana's innkeepers lien statutes. The plaintiffs brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory relief that the statutes were unconstitutional and damages. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that the defendants' actions did not constitute state action because they were private parties enforcing a statutory lien, consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent finding no state action in similar innkeeper detentions. The decision was based on the requirement that § 1983 claims need state action to implicate constitutional rights.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved Thomas Tacket, a Level 7 employee at Delco Remy Division of General Motors, who sued the company for defamation over statements by management personnel suggesting his involvement in suspicious requisitions for wooden shipping containers from an outside supplier called S & T Specialties, possibly implying kickbacks or misconduct. After a jury trial on liability, the court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of evidence. The decision rested on the conclusion that the internal communications among Delco employees did not constitute actionable defamatory publications, including considerations of intra-company dissemination and qualified privilege. Judgment was entered for the defendant with costs assessed accordingly.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by a hyperactive and emotionally handicapped student against his school district and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that disciplinary measures including paddling, isolation, denial of a field trip, and taping his mouth shut violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. After a bench trial on the reasonableness of the punishment, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The court reasoned that handicapped students are not exempt from standard school disciplinary procedures, the plaintiff had engaged in extensive disruptive behavior that other methods failed to correct, the techniques used fell within the teacher's common-law privilege, and the plaintiff's credibility was undermined by inconsistencies in his testimony while the teacher's account was more reliable.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Sharon Chandler's challenge to the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Chandler claimed disability due to hypertension, obesity, early congestive heart failure, and a possible mental impairment, but an Administrative Law Judge found she retained the residual functional capacity for light work and was not disabled under the Social Security Act, a conclusion affirmed by the Appeals Council. The court reviewed the administrative record under the substantial evidence standard and determined that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence, credited compliant findings over unsupported opinions, accounted for the combination of impairments, and appropriately applied the medical-vocational grid guidelines given the lack of significant non-exertional limitations. The court therefore denied Chandler's motion for summary judgment, affirmed the Secretary's decision, and entered judgment against the plaintiff.

healthcare

The case involved a class action by the EEOC alleging that Indiana Bell's pregnancy and maternity leave policies from 1972 onward violated Title VII by discriminating against female employees on the basis of sex, including differences in seniority accrual, reinstatement guarantees, mandatory leave timing, income and benefits continuation, and use of sick or vacation days compared to other temporary disabilities. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the EEOC had inexcusably and unreasonably delayed filing suit for nine years after the initial charges despite opportunities to investigate and conciliate, resulting in undue prejudice to Indiana Bell through faded witness memories, unavailable supervisors, lost records, and changed policies and law, including the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a 1981 car accident in Indiana in which Cynthia Russell was killed after her northbound vehicle collided with a westbound National Guard truck driven by a state guardsman; her estate administrator, David Russell, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence in painting the truck with camouflage that reduced its visibility. The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment. The court held that the guardsman was not a federal employee at the time of the accident, so the FTCA did not waive the government's sovereign immunity; it further concluded that the camouflage pattern was not the proximate cause of the collision and that the plaintiff's claims were otherwise barred as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case concerned two food stamp recipients in Indiana who also received benefits under the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Act (LIHEAA) and challenged the defendants' policy of treating LIHEAA vendor payments differently from direct payments when calculating food stamp eligibility. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the policy violated 42 U.S.C. § 8624(f) by disallowing excess shelter expense deductions for energy costs paid through vendor payments, which reduced food stamp benefits for some recipients. The core reasoning focused on statutory reconciliation: § 8624(f) expressly provides that LIHEAA assistance shall not be considered income or resources under the Food Stamp Act, so the payment method could not justify denying the deduction or creating disparities in benefits. The court did not address the plaintiffs' equal protection claim.

federal powercivil rights

The case involved Indiana residents who were AFDC applicants or recipients challenging the state's implementation of federal lump sum budgeting rules under 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(17), which created periods of ineligibility for benefits after receipt of nonrecurring lump sum income such as insurance settlements. The plaintiffs raised multiple claims, including that the rules were improperly applied to unearned income and minor children's awards, failed to account for resource limits or actual availability of funds, used an incorrect standard of need, and provided inadequate notices regarding related Medicaid terminations; they sought class certification, declaratory relief, and injunctions. The court denied class certification (while allowing interventions), dissolved temporary orders, and after a trial on the merits ruled for the state and federal defendants on all issues, holding that Indiana's policies complied with federal law. On notices, past practices violated regulations but current ones did not, and any retroactive benefits were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case arose from a bankruptcy-related contractual dispute in which Casey Corporation, as a contractor building a dam and reservoir for the Big Blue River Conservancy District with partial federal funding from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), sued both Big Blue and the SCS over the method of calculating payment for dirt movement. The SCS moved to transfer the action to the U.S. Claims Court or, alternatively, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, and later sought summary judgment on the ground that no direct contract or joint venture existed between Casey and the SCS. The district court denied the transfer and dismissal motions, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1471 conferred jurisdiction notwithstanding the Claims Court's usual exclusivity over contract claims against the United States, but granted summary judgment to the SCS. The court reasoned that Casey had shown neither an implied contract nor the requisite authorized supervision to establish a joint venture, and had not properly pursued a third-party-beneficiary theory.

federal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure