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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT