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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT