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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT