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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT