ILNews

Opinions April 16, 2013

April 16, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions were handed down after IL deadline Monday:

United States of America v. Ronald Zitt and Joshua Wampler
12-1277, 12-2865
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. In a consolidated appeal, affirms denial of Zitt’s motion for a mistrial. The District Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Dismisses Wampler’s appeal. Wampler pleaded guilty to two drug charges. Wampler waived his right to appeal as a condition of his agreement. Grants his counsel’s motion to withdraw and denies Wampler’s motion for substitute counsel.

Torray Stitts v. Bill Wilson, superintendent, Indiana State Prison
12-2255
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus. Remands to the District Court to resolve the actual extent of trial counsel’s alibi investigation. If the District Court finds that the trial counsel performed no further investigation, then it should grant Stitts’ habeas petition. If the court finds that trial counsel did more, then it must determine de novo whether that investigation was reasonable under Strickland.

Tuesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Renee S. Majors v. General Electric Co.
12-2893
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Affirms grant of summary judgment on Majors’ claims that GE violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it denied her positions and that GE retaliated against her for filing EEOC charges of discrimination.

Robert Leimkuehler, as trustee of and on behalf of the Leimkuehler Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American United Life Insurance Co.
12-1081, 12-1213, & 12-2536
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms ruling that American United Life Insurance Co. was not a fiduciary of the Leimkuehler Inc. Profit Sharing Plan with respect to AUL’s revenue-sharing practices. Although very little about the mutual fund industry or the management of 401(k) plans can plausibly be described as transparent, agrees that AUL is not acting as a fiduciary for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) when it makes decisions about, or engages in, revenue sharing. Finds it unnecessary to express any view on the question whether revenue sharing yields net benefits to individual 401(k) investors.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Arnett v. Julia Arnett (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/april/04161301par.pdf  
32A01-1208-DR-383
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution of marriage.

Enrique Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1208-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Herman P. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-PC-606
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

David Delong v. Kim Delong (NFP)
43A03-1206-DR-299
Domestic relation. Affirms custody order, reverses order on support and regarding a parenting coordinator and remands for further proceedings.

Harold M. Bacchus, Jr. v. Fazia Deen-Bacchus (NFP)
02A03-1203-DR-119
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part order finding the net worth of the marital property to be $1,405,763, and giving wife 55 percent and husband 45 percent. Remands with instructions.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT