7th Circuit to hold arguments at Notre Dame Law School

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in three Indiana cases Oct. 1 at Notre Dame Law School, including a lawsuit filed by African-American police officers and firefighters in Indianapolis who claim the promotion process is racially discriminatory.

The appeal in Kendale Adams, et al. v. Gregory Ballard, et al., 12-1874, challenges the final judgment in favor of the city of Indianapolis defendants, interim orders on summary judgment, and a motion to amend the complaint. The case comes from the Southern District of Indiana.

In United States of America v. Christopher Laraneta, 12-1302, the Circuit judges will hear the appeal of a sentence imposed in the Northern District of Indiana following Christopher Laraneta’s guilty plea on multiple child pornography charges. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison and to make restitution. The Circuit court has granted leave for an attorney for the victims to participate as an intervener in oral arguments.

In Emilio Martino v. Western & Southern Financial Group, 12-1855, out of the Northern District of Indiana, the judges will hear the appeal of summary judgment for Western & Southern Financial Group on Emilio Martino’s claim the company defamed him and discriminated and retaliated against him. Martino, a part-time Baptist pastor, claims his employment with the financial services company was improperly terminated because he refused to relinquish his position as pastor.  

The arguments will be held from 1 to 3 p.m., with a question-and-answer session with the presiding judges and case attorneys for law students to follow. A reception for the judges will be held in Eck Commons. The arguments are open to the public, but seating will be limited. A live, closed-circuit feed will also be broadcast in Room 1130 of Eck Hall of Law.

The policy of the 7th Circuit is to not release the names of the presiding judges until the day of the argument.

More information on the cases is available on Notre Dame Law School’s website.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.