Robert Lowell Miller jr

The case involved South Bend taxpayers seeking to prevent the city from transferring a parcel of land purchased for $1.2 million to a Catholic high school in exchange for limited community access to athletic facilities. The court decided to grant an injunction against the transfer. The core reasoning was that the transaction would provide a substantial benefit to a religious institution without neutral criteria or independent decision-making by third parties, which a reasonable observer would perceive as government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

religious libertyproperty

In Jennings v. United States, Keith Jennings filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and 360-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, claiming the sentencing court wrongly classified a prior Indiana conviction for resisting law enforcement as a crime of violence and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer and for not raising an argument under Rita v. United States on direct appeal. The district court denied the petition without a hearing. The court reasoned that affidavits showed no plea offer existed, the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigating the career-offender determination already affirmed on direct appeal, Rita had not been held retroactive on collateral review, and appellate counsel's choice of issues caused no prejudice because the sentence rested on statutory factors rather than any guidelines presumption.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute between Lafayette Life Insurance Company and its Errors and Omissions insurer, Arch Insurance Company, over coverage for multiple lawsuits filed by policyholders against Lafayette Life arising from deceptive sales practices by its agent, Gerald Kloppe. Lafayette Life sought partial summary judgment on its claim that Arch breached the policy by refusing to defend or indemnify those claims. The court granted the motion in part, holding that Arch breached the contract as to the first twelve claims because the policy's vicarious liability coverage applied and Exclusions A and C did not bar coverage. The court reasoned that the record contained no evidence that Lafayette Life knew of or participated in the agent's misconduct before the policy period, so the exclusions for intentional acts or known wrongful conduct were inapplicable, and the insurer could not rely on an unproven accusation of direct wrongdoing by Lafayette Life. The court left open issues of notice and cooperation for the remaining nine claims, along with bad faith and damages.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This multidistrict litigation consolidated class actions in which FedEx Ground drivers, operating under independent contractor agreements, sought reclassification as employees under state laws to recover business expenses and overtime wages. Building on its earlier Kansas decision granting summary judgment to FedEx, the court reviewed the remaining state cases using only evidence common to all drivers—the Operating Agreement and generally applicable policies—due to the class certification and MDL posture. The court granted summary judgment to FedEx in nearly all remaining cases, holding that the drivers qualified as independent contractors based on the absence of a right to control work methods, lack of at-will termination authority, drivers' responsibility for acquiring equipment, and the presence of entrepreneurial opportunities. The decisions were limited to the generalized claims presented and did not address potential outcomes under different procedural postures or individualized evidence.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns an Allen County, Indiana ordinance regulating 'itinerant medical providers'—physicians living outside the county or contiguous counties without local hospital admitting privileges—who perform surgical or invasive procedures. The ordinance mandates emergency contact disclosures, patient notifications, record-keeping, and compliance certifications to promote patient safety and follow-up care, prompted by concerns over out-of-town physicians lacking accountability. Abortion clinic Fort Wayne Women's Health and Dr. Klopfer sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement, arguing violations including privacy and equal protection, while the county moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted a partial preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of provisions requiring patients to sign notification forms, retention of those forms, government review of patient notifications, and reporting of unredacted patient information, due to privacy implications under relevant constitutional balancing tests, while allowing other aspects like basic contact disclosures to stand.

abortionhealthcarecivil rights

This case concerned whether FedEx Ground package delivery drivers qualified as employees or independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted FedEx's cross-motion, holding that the drivers were independent contractors as a matter of law. The decision rested on the Operating Agreements, which labeled the drivers as contractors and allowed them to hire helpers, sell routes, use their vehicles for other purposes, and operate with significant autonomy over the manner of their work while FedEx controlled only the results. Additional factors included the parties' stated intent to form an independent contractor relationship and the absence of at-will termination rights for FedEx. The ruling was based on the right to control under the contracts rather than actual day-to-day practices.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns Miche Bag, LLC's claims that The Marshall Group infringed its trade dress, utility patent, design patents, and copyrights by selling handbags with detachable covers under the Seasons by Sierra’s brand. After issuing a temporary restraining order, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction. The court granted the injunction, prohibiting the Marshall Group from selling or distributing handbags similar in size and shape to Miche Bag’s Classic Bag and Big Bag, as well as specific giraffe-patterned covers that infringed Miche Bag’s copyrights. The decision rested on preliminary factual findings from the hearing record regarding the protectability of Miche Bag’s intellectual property rights and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

business & regulatory

The case involved Jake Richardson's motion to suppress statements and evidence obtained after a traffic stop for speeding, during which officers used a drug-sniffing dog that alerted, found cash and drugs on Richardson, and questioned him without Miranda warnings, leading to additional incriminating statements. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, suppressing evidence of specific officer questions and Richardson's responses to them but allowing other statements and evidence. The core reasoning was that certain direct questions constituted custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, while other statements were voluntary and unsolicited or not elicited by interrogation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns whether the City of LaPorte, Indiana, violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its residential sidewalks accessible to individuals with disabilities. Disabled residents sued the city, arguing that the sidewalks qualified as a service, program, or activity under the ADA and that their poor condition made travel difficult or impossible for wheelchair users and others with mobility impairments. The city countered that sidewalks were not covered by the ADA, that maintenance responsibility fell on property owners under local ordinance, and that compliance would create a new service and impose undue financial burden. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on liability, holding that sidewalks constitute a service, program, or activity under the ADA for which the city bears responsibility, and rejected the city's affirmative defenses, while deferring determination of specific relief and financial issues to a later hearing.

civil rights

This case concerns a trademark dispute between two Indiana-based vision care businesses, with Vision Center Northwest (Dr. Tavel) alleging that Vision Value infringed its 'Vision Values' mark under the Lanham Act, common law, and Indiana law after Vision Value adopted a similar name for its nearby store. Dr. Tavel had obtained a preliminary injunction against Vision Value's use of the mark and later sought summary judgment on his claims and on Vision Value's counterclaim for wrongful injunction, while Vision Value cross-moved for summary judgment. The court denied Dr. Tavel's motion in full and granted Vision Value's motion in part and denied it in part, primarily analyzing issues of mark validity, actual confusion, priority of use, and whether the mark had been abandoned.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer Dental sued former Louisiana-based employees Scott Sharpe and Scott Beaudean for breaching non-disclosure, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses in their employment agreements, along with related claims involving trade secrets and fiduciary duties. The court addressed whether Indiana or Louisiana law governs the enforceability of the restrictive covenants, given a contractual choice-of-law provision selecting Indiana. After confirming a genuine conflict between the states' approaches to non-competes, the court applied Indiana's choice-of-law rules and held that Indiana law controls. It reasoned that enforcing the parties' contractual selection would not violate Louisiana's fundamental public policy, as Louisiana permits reformation of overbroad provisions and the agreements' limited scope did not implicate core public interests.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Shelly Mayden sued her former employer, Superior Ambulance Service, Inc., claiming she was paid less than male dispatchers because of her gender, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. The court granted summary judgment to Superior on all claims except Mayden's Equal Pay Act claim based on comparator Michael Samelson, finding insufficient evidence that the pay differential stemmed from legitimate factors such as education and experience. For the other comparators, the court determined Mayden failed to establish a prima facie case or overcome the employer's affirmative defenses under the statutes. The decision rested on the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact, with inferences drawn in the nonmovant's favor.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Donna Ketchem sued American Acceptance Company, LLC, and Bowman, Heintz, Boscia, and Vician, P.C., under the FDCPA, alleging that the defendants improperly sought to collect $250 in attorneys' fees in a credit card debt collection action because the substantial overlap in ownership between the debt buyer and the law firm meant no independent fees were actually incurred under the terms of her credit card agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and American Acceptance also sought sanctions against Ketchem's attorneys on grounds that the suit was frivolous. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that the allegations plausibly stated claims under FDCPA provisions barring collection of unauthorized amounts and false representations about debts. The court also denied sanctions, reasoning that the complaint's theory was not groundless at the pleadings stage and had been accepted in similar cases by other courts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Gregory Flowers was convicted after a jury trial of possessing cocaine base and marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a protected area and of possessing a firearm during those crimes, based on evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the motion and vacated the convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 860, finding that neither trial nor appellate counsel had challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on whether the nearby park qualified as a "playground" under the statutory definition, which requires an outdoor public recreational facility with at least three pieces of apparatus intended for children's recreation. Officer testimony at trial described the park only in general terms without addressing those required elements, so no rational jury could have found the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt; the court reduced the convictions to the lesser included offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Charles Skinner’s §1983 claims against Fort Wayne police officers and the city, alleging that a 2006 traffic stop for expired plates and driving violations led to an unlawful arrest and compelled blood/urine testing without probable cause, in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court denied the parties’ motions to strike expert and affidavit materials as moot. It granted summary judgment to the City of Fort Wayne on all claims, finding no evidence of an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom, and granted summary judgment on the due-process claim regarding the driver’s license. Summary judgment was denied on the individual-officer claims concerning the arrest and blood draw, leaving those issues for trial.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Patriot Homes and Forest River Housing (Sterling) over whether Patriot's modular home design, the Elite Modular, qualified for copyright protection as an architectural work under the Copyright Act. Sterling moved for partial summary judgment arguing that modular homes are not protectable architectural works. The court denied the motion, holding that the Elite Modular is a "building" eligible for protection because it is designed to be permanently affixed to a foundation like site-built homes, unlike mobile homes on chassis, and its floor plan shows creative design elements independent of utilitarian functions. The copyright registration provides prima facie evidence of validity.

property

This diversity action involves a dispute between Jim Aaron and Susan Scott over funds held in Scott's Merrill Lynch accounts, with Aaron seeking the funds via a state court writ of execution and a replevin claim while also alleging Merrill Lynch was independently liable for refusing to release them. After the state courts quashed the writ as invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, the federal court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, including Merrill Lynch's interpleader counterclaim and cross-claim. The court denied Aaron's motion for summary judgment on Merrill Lynch's liability, granted Merrill Lynch's cross-motion and interpleader request on grounds that it was a disinterested stakeholder facing conflicting claims, denied Scott's res judicata motion because the replevin theory was not litigated in state court, and allowed the replevin claim against Scott to proceed pending deposit of the funds.

propertyprocedure

This case involved Moran Foods suing Mid-Atlantic Market Development and related parties for breach of contract after the buyers defaulted on payments for several Save-A-Lot grocery store franchises, with the defendants counterclaiming for breach of contract and an ECOA violation based on marital status discrimination. After partial summary judgment for Moran, a jury verdict for the defendants that was later reversed on appeal, and multiple post-trial rulings, the court entered final judgment awarding Moran Foods $1,297,094.30 plus contractual prejudgment interest. The core reasoning was that under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, postjudgment interest begins only upon entry of a final, appealable judgment in which damages are meaningfully ascertained with evidentiary support; prior orders and the jury verdict lacked this support because they were reversed or involved unsupported setoffs, so prejudgment interest continued until this order.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Tippecanoe Beverages, Inc., an Indiana beer wholesaler, and Heineken USA, Inc., an importer, over the termination of an alleged long-term oral distribution agreement for Heineken products that began in the 1960s. Tippecanoe sued under Indiana’s Beer Wholesaler Protection Statute, claiming Heineken unlawfully terminated the relationship without compensation after Heineken began assigning exclusive territories to other distributors in 2002. Heineken moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute did not apply because Heineken was an importer rather than a primary source of supply under the law. The court granted summary judgment to Heineken, holding that the Beer Wholesaler Protection Statute was inapplicable to the importer-wholesaler relationship at issue and that Tippecanoe’s wrongful termination claim therefore failed as a matter of law.

business & regulatory

This case involved a claim by debtor Susanne Rosado against attorney Septtimous Taylor under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for actions taken in a foreclosure proceeding on her home. Taylor had been hired to prosecute the foreclosure after Rosado defaulted on her mortgage, and the dispute centered on whether certain statements in the foreclosure complaint and the accompanying FDCPA notice violated the Act's provisions regarding debt validation and collection practices. The court granted summary judgment in part to both parties, holding that the FDCPA generally does not apply to pure security enforcement actions like foreclosure except for specific provisions, but finding that some aspects of the notice and fee requests could trigger FDCPA obligations since they concerned debt collection. The core reasoning distinguished between enforcement of security interests and attempts to collect debts, applying precedents on what constitutes obtaining or collecting a debt under the statute.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure