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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT