ILNews

Opinions April 26, 2013

April 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Big Ridge Inc., Jerad Bickett, et al. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, et al.
12-2316, 12-2460
Review of order. Denies petitions for review filed by mine operators and a group of mine employees regarding regulations that allow for Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors to review employee medical and personnel records during inspections to verify the mines have not been under-reporting miners’ injuries and illnesses. Agrees with the commission that MSHA acted within its statutory and constitutional authority both in demanding information that would permit MSHA to verify the accuracy of mine operators’ injury reports and in issuing citations and monetary penalties when mine operators refused to comply.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Platinum Construction Group, LLC v. Christopher Collings
93A02-1210-EX-882
Agency action. Affirms award of benefits to former Platinum construction supervisor Collings for injuries he suffered during an accident on the job. The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s findings awarding Collings sums for temporary total disability and sums for permanent partial impairment support its judgment.

Shari (Ellis) Lovold v. Clifford Scott Ellis
54A01-1209-DR-410
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that C.E. repudiated his relationship with his father Clifford Ellis, but reverses the child support calculation because the court erred in requiring Ellis to pay child support for the time C.E. was living on a college campus. Remands with instructions.

Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
49A02-1210-MI-826
Miscellaneous. Reverses dismissal of Lebamoff Enterprises’ petition for judicial review. The company failed to timely file the agency record, but the original submission contained sufficient material to enable judicial review. Remands with instructions. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.R. (Minor Child) and T.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
35A05-1208-JT-435
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights and remands with instructions to enter specific factual findings and to provide an explanation as to how the findings support the judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT