Opinions April 25, 2012

April 25, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Emilio Martino v. Western & Southern Financial Group
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Western & Southern Financial Group on Martino’s lawsuit for religious discrimination and defamation. Martino’s evidence neither calls into doubt W&S’s explanation for his discharge – that he did not provide documents verifying his eligibility for employment in the U.S. – nor establishes a prima facie case of defamation.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Martin Meehan v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses Class C felony burglary conviction and resulting habitual offender enhancement because there is no evidence that would support an inference that Meehan’s DNA was found on a glove because he handled it during the burglary, as opposed to some other time.

James Edwin Goris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalence between 0.08 and 0.15, and Class C infraction failure to obey a stop sign at a through highway.

Walter Fisk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motorized vehicle.

Antonio A. Burgos, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jessica and Gerson Urbina v. Tina Klinkose-Kyler, Laronda Southworth and A Bond of Life Adoptions, LLC (NFP)

Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of the Urbinas’ lawsuit against ABLA for damages in a failed adoption process. Remands for reinstatement of the complaint.

Richard J. Bond v. Knox County Drainage Board and Dick Vermillion, As Knox County Surveyor (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Bond’s petition for judicial review for failure to state a claim.

Brenda Varo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing to address an issue raised in Varo’s appeal on a jury instruction on criminal gang activity, but that the error, if any, was waived. Reaffirms original decision.

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants state’s petition for rehearing, vacates the portion of opinion denying a hearing on restitution and remands for a new hearing on restitution.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.