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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT