ILNews

7th Circuit panel visits Indy law school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel converged on the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis campus Tuesday to hear three appellate arguments in its first visit in more than a decade.

Trading in the Chicago courthouse for the law school's Wynne Courtroom, the three-judge panel of Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Michael Kanne from Lafayette, and Judge John D. Tinder from Indianapolis heard arguments in:

United States v. Ricky L. Fines and Leroy Miller, Nos. 08-1069, 08-1089, is a combined criminal sentencing case from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana's South Bend Division. Both defendants are appealing their federal firearms convictions and sentences, arguing on evidentiary and procedural issues, including whether Miller can be defined as a gun collector.

Jonathan S. McGlothan, M.D. v. Tracey and Eric Wallace, No. 07-4059, is a case that delves into expert testimony issues involving a LASIK eye surgery medical malpractice case from the Southern District of Indiana's Terre Haute Division. McGlothan wants the 7th Circuit to reverse the $678,793 jury award against him and dismiss the case.

Sondra J. Hansen and William R. Hansen, individually and on behalf of C.H. v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp. and Dimitri B. Alano, No. 08-1205, a case from the Southern District of Indiana's Indianapolis Division, stems from a former high school band teacher's arrest and admittance in 2004 that he had sexual contact with a teenage female student in exchange for good grades. This federal suit eventually filed by the girl's parents alleges the school district was liable for Alano's criminal acts as they happened during his employment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the school corporation, and the attorneys argued about whether that was properly done and whether the judge lost jurisdiction of all state and other federal claims relating to Title IX.

The judges lobbed questions at the various attorneys standing at the podium, and Chief Judge Easterbrook interjected humor that drew laughs among the law school crowd, such as his opening comment about the medical malpractice jury award.

"A $700,000 award for loss of night vision seems high ... for that, you could just hire a chauffer," he said.

The court periodically visits different law schools to hear arguments. Law school spokeswoman Elizabeth Allington said this is the first time the federal appellate court has come here since March 9, 1994.

More than 100 students and faculty attended; after 90 minutes of arguments about half of the observers remained for a question-and-answer session where the judges answered general questions about their court and positions. Questions ranged from the balance between briefs and in-person arguments, the most difficult part of the judges' jobs, how they work their law clerks, and how they've felt about being reversed by the nation's highest court.

The judges told the audience that 55 percent of its final work comes in the form of written opinions and 45 percent in unprecedential orders, and that the court strives to issue a decision within two or three months of an argument but that it can range anywhere from a week to more than a year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT