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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT