ILNews

7th Circuit to hear arguments at law school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals travels Tuesday to hear arguments at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

A panel of three judges will hear arguments in the Wynne Courtroom in three cases. In USA v. Ricky L. Fines and LeRoy F. Miller, Nos. 08-1069, 08-1089, from the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Ricky Fines and LeRoy Miller appeal their firearms convictions and sentences. Fines and Miller argue the District Court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence and the court erred in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal. Miller also argues the District Court erred in finding he was not a "collector" of guns and not entitled to the benefit of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Section 2K2.1(b)(2).

In Jonathan S. McGlothan, M.D. v. Tracey Wallace and Eric Wallace, No. 07-4059, from the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Dr. Jonathan McGlothan wants the 7th Circuit to reverse the jury verdict against him in a suit brought by the Wallaces following LASIK eye surgery and enter judgment as a matter of law in his favor, dismiss the matter with prejudice, and assess costs against the plaintiffs for relief the court deems proper.

In 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, from the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp. on the Hansens' Title IX claims. The 7th Circuit will hear arguments as to whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Hamilton Southeastern School Corp., whether the District Court lost jurisdiction of the Hansens' state claims after dismissal of all federal claims brought pursuant to Title IX, and whether the District Court improperly granted summary judgment to HSE on the Hansens' state law claims.

The panel of judges will be announced Tuesday. Arguments, which begin at 4:15 and are scheduled to last until 6 p.m., will be followed by a question-and-answer session. The Indianapolis Bar Association will host a reception in Conour Atrium following the arguments. The arguments and reception are open to the public.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT