ILNews

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.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT